Matthew Johnson wrote:

> >>
> >I sincerely think you do not understand the Reformed position and
> >experience.  Obedience is not a lackadaisical option.
>
> And how am I supposed to believe that, Loren, when I see such blatant
> disobedience to the commandments of Christ from the proponents of
"the Reformed
> position"? And it is not only in this NG I see this. I have gone into
detail on
> this often enough before.
>
Stuffed peacock!  "detail?"  Now that is a laugh.  You accuse and
defame but never "detail" explain.  For instance, "commandments of
Christ".  Now list them for me, chapter and verse.  This is why I state
you do not understand the dispensational distinctives between the Age
of Law and the Age of Grace.
>
> >  Sanctification
> >is serious stuff even though it does not effect our already secured
> >state of justification.  Again, the Reformed position is that once
> >having been justified, the Spirit creates a new heart with us such
that
> >we earnestly desire to do what is right.
>
> And I can only believe this is purest fiction, Loren, as long as I
see such
> blatant disobedience to the commandments of Christ from the
proponents of "the
> Reformed position".
>
As I continue to point out, "negation without discussion."
>
> >Everyone answers to that desire in their own free-will capacity.
>
> But even just by saying this, you have subtly and dishonestly
_changed_ what the
> term 'free-will' means. This Augustine never did. Yet you claim that
he supports
> you. Besides: what if that 'answer' is 'no'? Yet this is precisely
the answer I
> see so many 'Reform' theologians giving.
>
Obviously, there is so much to consider in this matter that to discuss
it in this forum is presumptive at best.  When one reads, check that,
wades through works like Edwards and others of his stature, who would
dare assume that we could come to grips with it here?  This doctinal
issue is besieged with "subtleties".
>
> >Therein is the cooperation.
> >But it is not the same cooperation of semi-pelagianism.
>
> There is no such thing as 'semi-pelagianism'.
>
To a degree I agree with you.  I note before that one either holds to
total depravity or to some degree of Pelagianism.  There is no third
way.  But then you didn't like that.  Yet, you are here supporting that
very dicotomy.   You remind me of Aesop's eagle.

> That is a chimera cooked up by
> witch-hunters, much like McCarthyists labeling people
'fellow-travellers'.
>
Hardly.  Even the RCC accepts the distinction between Pelagianism and
Semi-Pelagianism.  Here you stand in the clear minority.  But I would
reiterate that if one through all explains in the kettle and boilded
them all down, there would only be two elements left: either finite man
has true free will, or he does not.  As soon as you stray from the
first posite, you have wandered into the second.
>
> >  Rather, it is active-passive.
>
> So you say, but when anyone probes deeper, they find that you don't
really mean
> this.
>
you confuse by hoping that candor will hide the truth.
>
> >The Ship is Christ.  He is both the ship and its Captain.  We are
> >anchored in a protected habor with a sure anchor of hope.  That hope
is
> >Christ, not ourselves.  That was the whole purpose of the Law -we
can
> >do nothing.
>
> Now here is a perfect example of the deeper probing I mentioned! For
although
> just a moment ago, you talked about 'active-passive', here you are
claiming ONLY
> passive, by saying "we can do nothing".
>
Hmmm.  The problem between your version of the Truth and mine is not
always in strategy or logic but in contradiction with reality.
Relatively trivial contradictions are more suitable for humor than
persuasive debate.  The central problem in "knowing" is never reality,
but "self."  And because mankind has fallen, "self"
will ever have to
be wrestled against to gain reality.  "Self" thus requires sola
scriptura.  We no longer have an unarguable 'derivative conscious" link
to God.  "We can do nothing" is the scriptural record.  Illustrations
such as blind, slaves, seared, etc., all speak to the reality than man
do longer has the freedom of will to actively initiate or even
participate in his own regeneration.  The logic that man, by his free
will fell, can by that very same free will, chose life is a conceptual
hallucination.  Camus used the myth of Sisyphus rightly.  There are
some unregenerate thinkers who have been honest enough to accept
reality.  It is a shame that those of the Truth cannot far exceed them.

The problem lies in not taking your presupposition to fruition, Matt.
Reality always has the final word.  Nietzsche's own "Thus I have
willed" is exactly parallel with your own paradigmic explaination.
You're more in tune with Frank Sinatra's "I Did It My Way," than you
are with, "apart from Me you can do nothing."  Your version of
Christian living leads to numb, exhausted, aching disparagement.

The Reformed view of salvation accepts no admixture or cominggling
between that which is graciously given and that which has an hint of
merit, including cooperation.  The Reformed position is that it is not
up to us to create, but to discover.  Discovery can be had in general
revealation, but definitive Truth can only be found by the regenerated
man in the Scriptures.

((( 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.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/16/04 4:17:33 PM