Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
> You forget: I _have_ looked at Edwards.

But that is all you have done.  I, personally, have never been able to
make it entirely through his "Freedom of the Will."  I know many others
who acknowledge the same yet maintain that it is the finist theological
writing to come out of US.  But even "Freedom of the WIll" is based
upon a foundation work, "The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin
Defended" though it was written 14 yrs later.

>And I found his coverage of the topic
> far, far inferior to that of St. John of Damascus, or even to
Augustine's. But
> whenever I show you this, you insist on twisting and misquoting them
badly!
>
This clearly evidences that you've probably never even looked at
"Freedom of the Will."  Augustine's work in no way compares to it.  I
haven't read JD's work.  In all of the works that I have read
concerning this issue, JD is rarely sited and when sited, but briefly.

Quote:

If any creature be of such a nature that it proves evil in its proper
place, or in the situation which God has assigned it in the universe,
it is of an evil nature.  That part of the system is not good, which is
not good in its place in the system; and those inherent qualities of
that part of the system, which are not good, but corrupt, in that
place, are justly looked upon as evil inherent qualities.  That
propensisty is truly esteemed to belong to the *nature* of any being,
or to be inherent in it, that is the necessary consequence of its
nature, considered together with its proper situation in the universal
system of existence, whether that propensity be good or bad."

End quote  [The Works of Jonathan Edwards," 1:151]

The point is, if man is good at the core of his heart and only evil
peripherally, tangentially or accidentally, then why does not the core
win out over the tangent or the substance over the accidents?  Your
plane does not conform to the universe that exists, Matthew.  It simply
isn't the human experience no matter how eliquently you write your
creeds.
>
> >> >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.
>
> Then why do you keep flinging the term at me?
>
If you had read what was written before answering, you would have
understood my specified affirmation.
>
> >I note before that one either holds to
> >total depravity or to some degree of Pelagianism.
>
> But this is false. We have been over this before often.
>
No.  Actually you've only done what you here do -negate.  If you are
true in your negation, then it should be simple enough for you to
illustrate it simply.  But you have not because you cannot.  At this
point, Augustinianism is antithetical to Pelagianism.  Anything else is
only synthetic.
>
> >  There is no third way.
>
> Convenient for you to insist on, of course, since it gives you an
excuse to view
> the world in black and white, ignoring the shades of gray, and even
the color!
>
Still arguing without substantiation.
> >>
> >Hardly.  Even the RCC accepts the distinction between Pelagianism
and
> >Semi-Pelagianism.
>
> So _what_ if they accept it? How many times do I have to tell you? We
are NOT
> RC, we feel no compulsion to follow their fallacious categorization.
>
You are so determined to negate everything that you miss the point.
The point is that you stand alone in your refusal to accept that there
are only two alternatives.  You refuse the biblical consciousness of
antithesis.
>
> >  Here you stand in the clear minority.
>
> So _what_? We were never promised that true Christians would be in
the majority. On the contrary: Christ tells us: (Lk 12:32)
>
Your argumentation is outside of the context.  The Church is to be One.
There is to be One dogma on key issues.  You nor I will submit to
anything less than Trinitarianism.  Though not equal, certainly this
issue is as elemental to the Church.  Man is by nature a sinner.
Either you accept that or you have the Pelagian view to some degree or
another.

>
> >> >The Ship is Christ.
>
> Yes, yours is in contradiction with reality all the time. As here.
For "we can
> do nothing" is OBVIOUSLY PURELY PASSIVE! Yet you just claimed to
believe in
> something 'active-passive'.
>
Again, it seems you do not even understand the basic economy of grace.
>
> > The central problem in "knowing" is never reality, but
"self."
>
> No. This is true only for the self-centered.
>
And you are not?  You are sinless?  This is the boldest statement you
have ever declared!
>
> >We no longer have an unarguable 'derivative conscious" link
> >to God.  "We can do nothing" is the scriptural record.
>
> No, that is not the scriptural record. Remember Enoch and Noah.
>
Yes.  Enoch "walked with God."  But that consciousness is not equated
in scripture to that of Adam before his turning.  This would be such a
foundational doctrine that not only would the OT writers deliberate
upon it, not only would the writers of the NT expand upon it, but
Christ would be entirely disingenuous for not having pointed that out
Himself.  It also strikes a blow at the necessity of His incarnation
and death.  Here you are being quite naive as to the repercussions of
your doctrine.
>
> >such as blind, slaves, seared, etc., all speak to the reality that
men
> >no longer have the freedom of will to actively initiate or even
> >participate in their own regeneration.
>
> No, it is only your theologically biased misreading of Scripture that

> "speaks to this reality". For it is not 'reality' at all.
>
At least I don't have to resort to "spiritualizing" the text to make it
conform to my position.  If we take your basic premise to fruition
(which apparently you refuse to do or allow) it defames Christ's death
"for all the world."
>
> >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.
>
> You who plead "sola scriptura" now have to resort to quoting the
existentialist
> Camus??? This should have been warning enough to you how far off the
beaten path
> you have wandered.
>
There is a difference between general revelation and special
revelation.  Even Paul used the writtings of pagan's to make a point.
All truth is God's truth but the only authoritative truth left to the
Church on which to build its doctrines is scripture.  Again, your
argument is outside of the context.  Again, candor is not the reality.
> >>
> So says the man who in his clinging love for unreality still believes

> Scripture teaches OSAS!
>
Nothing so elevates and glorifies the nature of God's grace as does the
absolute sinfulness of man.  "In that while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us."  Your theological school places an asterisk on that verse
much like modern baseball should to note steroid useage.  You would
have us believe that some men are on some sort of spiritual steroid and
that they never chose to sin and thus are "deified."

No my friend, like the stars themselves, the greatness and depth of the
gospel is only visible when viewed against the blackness and greatness
of the ruin into which man has plunged.

((( 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 12/19/04 10:04:56 PM