New Posts

Brother Del · 2025-11-20T00:01:22-0600

I understand the reason for the question. But in the grander scheme of things, denominations are inventions of men. Christ did indeed establish a church, but His church had nothing at all to do with buildings are creeds, least of all cults or denominations.

When Christ returns will He find faith? That's what He's looking for, and not a statement of faith, but true faith expressed through obedience to His many commandments, the greatest of which is love.

Dikaioumenoi · 2025-11-19T23:48:31-0600

fhansen said:
Ok, so bear with me on this if you will. We agree that ἑλκύω, itself, allows for resistance: a person can resist and thwart the enablement, can refuse to act on it themselves. The word does not imply an act that cannot be resisited, an act that must be completed. That implication comes from the fact that God raises those who've come. Is that correct?

No...

You are still collapsing two different categories that John keeps distinct. Let me lay this out again in the simplest possible terms.

There are two issues:

The ability to come (δύναμαι)
Actually coming (implied in the resurrection clause)

ἑλκύω in John 6:44 governs the first category, not the second. The verse says nothing about the mechanics of the second except by implication. So when you talk about "resisting" ἑλκύω, you are not resisting the act as John defines it; you are importing the second category (coming) into the domain of the first (ability). That is the category error I keep pointing out. Notice what you wrote:

"a person can resist and thwart the enablement, can refuse to act on it themselves."

This sentence presupposes exactly what you need to prove. A "refusal to act on it" is only meaningful after a genuine capacity exists. You cannot refuse to act on a capacity you do not possess. So by framing it this way, you are presupposing the very thing at issue: that the enablement has succeeded.

But if the enablement has succeeded -- if the Father has in fact generated the capacity -- then ἑλκύω has already been effectual in the only sense John applies the term: it produces the ability (not the exercise of it). That is why your attempt to deny effectual movement in ἑλκύω collapses. Earlier you argued that ἑλκύω does not imply a decisive transition because you assumed that would commit you to irresistible grace. But the transition in view is not the act of coming; it is the giving of the renewed capacity that makes coming possible. So by denying that ἑλκύω entails an effectual transition (from inability to ability), you not only miss the actual basis of the argument for irresistible grace (which lies in the structure of the verse, not the semantics of ἑλκύω), but you undermine your own position. On your reading, the Father's act of "drawing" becomes an attempt that may or may not succeed in generating the capacity for faith, leaving the text saying that the very ability to come may never be granted at all.

So the argument I've presented divides cleanly into two parts:

Semantics. ἑλκύω describes the decisive translation from inability to ability. It does not speak to whether someone later exercises that ability, and therefore the question of resistance is not relevant here. The claim "someone can be drawn but refuse to come" is not a semantic point; it is a category mistake. ἑλκύω addresses only whether the Father has successfully generated the necessary capacity to act, which is something that must be in place before the very question of resistance even becomes meaningful.
Grammar of the whole verse. The final clause ("and I will raise him up on the last day") identifies the one raised as the same one who has been given the ability. That is the only place where the text links ability with actual coming. That syntactical linkage -- not the semantics of ἑλκύω -- is what yields the argument for irresistible grace. If the resurrection clause were absent, no argument for irresistible grace could be constructed from verse 44 alone.

Bradskii · 2025-11-19T23:44:52-0600

AV1611VET said:
Good.

There is.

And for the sake of arguing, let's call this something else "vital energy."

Let's not. There is nothing in science that equates to that. And again, this is the science section.

AV1611VET said:
That's what Kent Hovind and David Mainse are doing. They are concentrating on just the science and showing that life cannot arise on its own -- even if all the ingredients are there in the right order.

If all the characteristics are there, then we have life. There is no argument about that. It's the definition of life. We've covered this.

AV1611VET said:
They are showing that abiogenesis is a lie.

Hovind is ignorant as to how it started. He can't argue against something he doesn't understand. Neither, for that matter, can you.

AV1611VET said:
Let's discuss how life originated, using science only; and I'll use my near-zero knowledge of science, as well as try my best to leave theology out of the discussion, and we'll see where this goes.

That's the whole idea.

Bradskii · 2025-11-19T23:37:16-0600

Fervent said:
not quite, Islamic jurisprudence is heavily regulated until modernists have sought to re-write Islamic history. They say "the doors of ishtijad are closed" and defer to classic interpreters, who unanimously agreed that ayat like 9:29 were unlimited calls to war until the end of time "when there is no more fitnah."

As I said, it's all interpretation. All sections of the Quran must be read in context. No cherry picking or I'll start with the OT.

Fervent said:
Perhaps I should have added "or pay the jizya" since that is what Islam calls for, modernist whitewashing not withstanding.

No, that only applies to non believers within an Islamic state. And nowhere does it call for beheading. Or any other form of death.

Brother Del · 2025-11-19T23:36:13-0600

Better yet, what does it matter what Calvin thinks about good works, and why spend anytime debating it?

Are we really that uninterested in the "weightier matters"?

Brother Del · 2025-11-19T23:29:01-0600

Vault Air

rambot · 2025-11-19T23:21:42-0600

Servus said:
The issue is often what gets repeated is either inaccurate or distorted.

As for what you are looking for, have you ever even searched for Trump displaying acts of kindness or gentleness etc?

I'm asking for answers. A single act is nothing. Fruits. With an s.

I did just see him call a woman piggy without apologizing or regretting or anything that could come as s fruit of the spirit.

Douggg · 2025-11-19T23:19:14-0600

sovereigngrace said:
The good olive tree is true Israel. We have been joined to them - the elect remnant according to grace. It is a spiritual Israeli tree. It is a believing tree. It is the household of faith from the beginning.

The text does not say that the good olive tree is Israel.

The good olive tree is people who believe God and are saved. Not any particular nation.

Mark Quayle · 2025-11-19T23:15:31-0600

jonojim1337 said:
So I was thinking about this verse, because it contradicts what is written elsewhere in the Bible, that there is water above and below the earth.

It turns out that the word translated as “nothing” - Blimah or Belimah or however you prefer it - is the opposite of Hokmah or Chokmah - which means wisdom. Furthermore, it is related to Balaam, a fool so foolish he was rebuked by a donkey.

Source:

https://www.sophian.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3052

So I think the correct interpretation of this is that while the earth is above the waters in the physical sense, it is above foolishness in the spiritual sense.

Interesting, but it would be hard to make a solid doctrine of it. That is to say, to me it points at many possibles of a related nature, to which there is truth, but it is beyond us to structure it. As many of my friends would say, "False equivalence"; and they would be right if we were to define the matter that carefully.

Mark Quayle · 2025-11-19T23:12:11-0600

A Devil's Advocate said:
Disclaimer: This post is intended for those who follow the True God of the bible and not the lesser form of God commonly associated with Christianity (sarcasm intended).

There is this popular belief that mankind messed up. We were given a test. Should we choose correctly, we would remain in a relationship with God, completely dependent on Him. But if we choose wrong, we would end up cast out from a relationship with Him and left to eventually die, unless God were to intervene. This test was made known through the two trees in the midst of the Garden; the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Of course, as we've all been made to understand, mankind messed up and made the wrong choice. This is absolutely ridiculous!

Let's start with the fact that God is the creator of the very reality in which we exist. All existence comes from God. The very idea that God would create a life form, from the infinite possibilities of what He could create, that would be capable of messing up, if He did not want them to mess up, is absolute fantasy. If God did not want man to sin, man never would've sinned. When the serpent told Eve she would become like God, the serpent was speaking in reference to knowledge, not some form of godly power capable of messing up God's plan.

Also, the idea that God was testing man to see if he would remain loyal is just as ridiculous. In everything that God created, He said that it 'was all very good.' There was nothing God created that could possibly tempt man away from God. By introducing the tree of knowledge, with the commandment not to eat from it, creates the very condition where disloyalty becomes possible. Meaning, God creates the very thing to cause disloyalty. This is illogical. If He did not want man to be tempted, He would not have created the potential for it.

So why the tree of knowledge then?

A relationship requires the freedom to either accept or to refuse. For such a choice to be realized requires what we understand as freewill. Freewill, at it's very essence, is the freedom to deny God, to deny our very creator. It is what enables our moral agency, the capacity to discern between good and evil, right and wrong, and to act accordingly. So naturally, in order to have freewill, one must posses the knowledge of good and evil. This is knowledge that neither Adam or Eve had prior to the fall, Gen 3:5, Gen 3:22.

For God to establish the possibility of a relationship means allowing man freewill. To allow man freewill means allowing man the knowledge of good and evil. However, this comes at a cost. God is Just by nature and cannot act contrary to His nature. This means any evil that is committed must be punished. The punishment for evil is spiritual death, separation from God. This, of course, creates a dilemma. How does God allow man freewill while upholding His Divine justice?

Christ Jesus!

God resolves this dilemma through Jesus. God takes upon Himself the punishment for sin in the person of Jesus. Through His sacrifice, mankind is forgiven making it possible to enter into a relationship with God.

It should also be understood that you cannot know the character/nature of God without evil. God Is good, but how are you to know good if you don't know it's opposite? You need it's opposite from which to distinguish what is good. How were Adam and Eve to know God wasn't evil, or that the serpent wasn't good? Surely, had Eve known the serpent wasn't good, she wouldn't have listened to him. Adan and Eve had no way of recognizing the goodness of God until they experienced the absence of God, until they experienced evil.

Sin was no accident. It was necessary so that the goodness of God could be known. Likewise, the crucifixion was also a part of God's divine plan. It was necessary in order to deal with the penalty for the sin that God had to allow. It was all predestined, as captured beautifully by Paul in Eph 1:4-10.

Now, don't misunderstand... God does not will sin! Nor does He take pleasure in it. But in His infinite wisdom, He knew that allowing sin would create the context in which humanity could experience His goodness, grace, and love. The fall wasn't a breakdown in God's plan, it was the very road in which that plan would be fulfilled.

Very good! I'm curious—how do you view T.U.L.I.P. ?

7thKeeper · 2025-11-19T23:11:48-0600

iluvatar5150 said:
No. My understanding is that he couldn't (or perhaps really really shouldn't) release them until Maxwell's appeals were finished, which didn't happen until this year.

This would be the case. Maxwell's appeals didn't end until this year.

Yarddog · 2025-11-19T23:09:02-0600

Vambram said:
IMO, those Democratic Party Senators are really urging sedition by our military against President Trump.

It doesn't fit into the definition of sedition. It is the duty of the military to refuse to obey an illegal order. They take an oath to the Constitution, not to the President.

Mark Quayle · 2025-11-19T23:04:53-0600

bling said:
That is just your definition of free will, making it only totally free in every and all situations. Each choice can stand on its own, being a free will choice or not a free will choice. Humans are not God, having total free will.

Then, by that statement, free will is not 'libertarian' (uncaused) choice.

The will need not be uncaused, nor the inclination of the will uncaused, nor the decisions uncaused, for the choices to indeed be genuine.

bling said:
A man can lust in his heart for a woman of his own free will, but not have the free will ability to physically satisfy that lust, so man’s free will actions are very limited. The same person might keep from lusting after that same woman by lusting after another woman, avoid seeing the woman, and/or be busy doing some spirit filled work and not take the time to lust after the woman.

Now what would cause that man to want to lust after that woman?

Nothing happens in a void.

locust · 2025-11-19T22:59:52-0600

this was good , i sat the gun of interest on the bench ,target is a thumb tack in the center of a paper plate @100 yd the shot was made ,the pin disappeared ,the plate fell . i went home

Vambram · 2025-11-19T22:59:10-0600

I watched the music video a few nights ago and my Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, blessed me with that awesome rendition of "O Come, O Come Emmanuel."

Yarddog · 2025-11-19T22:50:44-0600

Bob Crowley said:
A friend (whom I haven't seen for a long time) was sent on a trip to check some European and US hospital systems. This was nearly 30 years ago i might add. He was then an architect working in a Queensland state government department concerned with government building programs.

I later asked him what he thought.

He wasn't impressed with the US hospital system. He said he would walk into a five star foyer while out the back the overworked and underpaid navvies kept the system going.

He thought the best systems were in Germany and Holland, which have socialised medicine. They were far more efficient and equitable.

I sometimes get a bit cynical about the US fear of "socialism". The socialised systems of government in most European countries deliver better health care, lower crime rates, and longer life spans than the US system. But as soon as someone mentions "socialism" in a US context, they're likely to be pounced upon by quasi McCartyist demagogues, and labelled "communist".

Yeah, nurses work 16 hour days. It doesn't make any sense. I don't trust hospitals after a nurse over dosed me on pain killers. She gave me twice the dosage as the doctor prescribed. I guess I was lucky to be in the hospital when it occurred . Ironic.

All I remember was my eyes rolling back and passing out.

Valletta · 2025-11-19T22:22:50-0600

Hentenza said:
What truth?

BTW- As an independent I voted for Trump (really against Harris) in the last election but am not a groupie like you. I’m still centrist while you have jumped all the way to far right. The minority opinion, if you even want to call it that, is not subversive.

Your arguments really is all over the place and your Strawman continues. There is nothing wrong about protecting the border but there is everything wrong by treating people inhumanely. That is your pope’s message.

The U.S. Catholic bishops statement says: "We recognize that nations have a responsibility to regulate their borders and establish a just and orderly immigration system for the sake of the common good. Without such processes, immigrants face the risk of trafficking and other forms of exploitation. Safe and legal pathways serve as an antidote to such risks."
I also agree that the deportation process should be humane.

A2SG · 2025-11-19T22:21:07-0600

Valletta said:
A lot of them don't know what fascism is.

Kind of like when some accuse others of being socialists or communists.

-- A2SG, a lot of people today don't know the meaning of many words....

linux.poet · 2025-11-19T22:16:21-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
Ever hear of AI powered "Slaughter Bots?"

Nope, not those specific type.

When I saw the topic title, I immediately thought about giving some A.I. robots some cannons, swords, and machine guns. That’s just a great idea.

(sarcasm intended) Or make some suicide bomber bots to take out my enemies muhaha.

Never mind the hacker-bots, sex-bots, and drug mule hauling bots of the future. How about an abortion robot A.I.? That sounds like about the worst use case possible.

Tunneling bot for prison escapes, remote A.I. helicopter for the same…there’s a lot of criminal potential for A.I. that hasn’t been explored yet, mostly because we don’t have gun-carrying humanoids yet. Once we do, the sky is the limit.

d taylor · 2025-11-19T22:07:52-0600

-

You want me to post every time a black person is murdered in The Delta.

1 dead in Tuesday night Greenville shootings

The Liturgist · 2025-11-19T22:02:35-0600

bob121 said:
Hey Colo Millz, Kiwi in Tokyo here—years of chronic pain have made Phil 3:10 my lifeline. When I choose to unite the ache to Christ’s, it stops feeling pointless and becomes partnership: purging pride, deepening compassion, and reminding me the nails weren’t the worst part—bearing our sin was (Luke 22:44). Biblical, provided we remember our pain participates in, never completes, His finished work (Col 1:24; Rom 8:18). Thanks for putting biblical meat on a hard reality—fellow-partakers, not the punished. Grace to you.

I myself also suffer from chronic pain and know of what you speak. It is a consolation.

linux.poet · 2025-11-19T21:58:33-0600

Preventing cancer is pretty basic:
1. Don’t eat bacon or any meat preserved by nitrates. Beef Jerky is off the menu. Don’t burn your meat and scrape any char off after cooking.
2. Get some aluminum-free baking powder.
3. Ventilation is important, especially in the kitchen area. Try to avoid burning baked goods because the fumes are not good for you. Just don’t burn your food.
4. Doses of turmeric and reservatrol will help prevent cancer. Reservatrol is found in grapes, so eat grapes. Stuffed grape leaves are delicious. Lion’s mane mushroom powder is also a cancer preventative.
5. Actually do your medical tests, like mammograms and colonoscopies.
6. Swapping out baked goods for processed foods may help reduce the amount of carcinogenic chemicals entering your body.

Sometimes, when you’re afraid of something, it’s not altogether irrational. I’ve watched my mom die early from cancer and it is a risk of living here in the U.S.

1 Timothy 1:7 said:
for God did not give us a spirit of fear but rather a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline.

Therefore, having some self-discipline to reduce your risk of this disease may reduce your risk and thus your fear, telling your brain “I’ve got it covered.” Jesus has already conquered death and the disease that leads to it, but there’s no need to throw this body away prematurely.

But if you’re afraid to eat at restaurants or one snack bar, that’s too much. It’s not that bad. It’s the cumulative effect of years of bad eating that creates runaway cancer, not one odd meal out or 10. If you build good healthy eating habits at home, your body has a store of resistance and resilience that it will build up. You’re going to be okay. I think most desk dwellers underestimate just how tough our bodies actually are. We’re actually pretty hard to kill.

Gracious Heavenly Father and Lord Jesus,
I pray that You would remind ChubbyCherub that You have conquered death and hell, and all disease along with it. Help her to walk in Your strength and to be free from anxieties and worries. Help her to walk in love for others who take her out to eat, and also in self-discipline, that she may manage any disease risk she may have, and walk in the light of Your truth.
In Christ’s Name,
Amen

Fervent · 2025-11-19T21:44:58-0600

concretecamper said:
2 Tim 3:15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

The Scriptures Timothy knew from his infancy ( most likely before Christ was crucified ) is the Tanakh. Paul COULD NOT be referring to the Bible. Paul was referring to the Tanakh.

There's also the question of what theopneustas means in context, because there is a good case to be made that prior to Origen the idea was a life-giving property to the texts which fits with Pauls focus on the usefulness of the Scriptures in pastoral service rather than a theory of inspiration. It is out-breath not in-breath.

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-19T21:40:45-0600

essentialsaltes said:
McDonald's is losing its low-income customers. Economists call it a symptom of the stark wealth divide

New Posts

New Posts

McDonald's is losing its low-income customers. Economists call it a symptom of the stark wealth divide​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

McDonald's is losing its low-income customers. Economists call it a symptom of the stark wealth divide