That’s not about if your name is in the book of life or not. That’s about God comforting and commanding Paul to enter the city with the assurance he will be safe and that there are many Christians in that city which will be able to help.
1 Like
Most likely he was not shown to be incorrect, but shown a opinion that someone refused to see as being wrong. Which is the same as mine. It’s like saying Dan Corner has proven OSAS to be heretics. It’s a statement that is bolder than reality.
1 Like
It is not about heresy (I don’t know Dan Corner), it is about understanding the reality of God’s providence and sovereignty. Was Maggie’s sequence accidental?
I don’t even know who Maggie and nothing she says about miracles or her life has any bearing on my beliefs at all. Its no different than a muslims opinion on his experiences with God. It’s anecdotal. It’s through the lens of a persons worldview. Which is the same for almost every religious experience including mine. But has no weight as far as countering scripture.
Sure God knew how many Christians was alive in that city on that day. That includes the ones saved that morning and the ones that abandoned the faith. I’m still at work and listening to podcasts about caves prepping for some cave kayaking I’m drawing near to. So I’m bouncing from the convo for now. Depending on what size this thread takes I’ll read back through and respond down the road. Or just take notes and make a thread. Just chiming in that OSAS is not a necessary belief for the choices in the poll.
I have mentioned her multiple times since she first posted her testimony, so that is surprising. One more time: Maggie’s testimony is a wonderful case in point demonstrating God’s sovereignty and ‘planning’ in his providential interventions. It ain’t jus’ luck.
I understand. I’m just saying I have never read it. It’s been cursed as a source to prove several things to me. What I’m saying is that it won’t change a thing. I can cite stories of people who swear they were probed by aliens and people who swear Bigfoot killed their friend. Whatever it means to you, it won’t mean the same thing to me. A persons religious experience could be lies, disorders, mistaken interpretation, or even tricks by others being carried out. Including mine. So a persons personal experience will have no change at all on my beliefs. There has been several people in here who have sworn things like seeing miracles. I still don’t believe it. Same goes for whatever Maggie claims. I don’t understand why someone would believe it’s significant to another as evidence.
That is an uninformed opinion.
You are sure opining a lot of things without having read either of the conversations.
It’s not though. I am confident that a thread on here did not overturn the dozens of books I’ve read and the studying I’ve done under elders by people I believe to be Christians in trith and righteousness. There are tons of things in here that people believe is true as the majority that I still believe in completely false and so destructive that I’ve stopped directing people here. A group of people who all agree something is true can claim we are true.
I can take you to forums on other sites and groups where 99.99% will agree that we are right and that those that believe OSAS is wrong and that it has been debated again snd again. Anyways. I’m withdrawing because it’s useless. I don’t have the time to respond with dozens and dozens of verses at this moment. I’m to busy to actually debate it. I should have left it at my original comment.
OSAS is not a belief that must be accepted to accept the various choices , such as it being a group effort between man and god. Since I believe in one of the views for the most part and do so without belief in OSAS.
Because the conversation does not matter. It means nothing compared to the years and years of conversations I’ve had spanning hundreds of hours with dozens of disciples. You’re confusing a conversation where some from that conversation disagrees, with what was proven. Anyways later. Last response for now.
Nonsense…
That is an argumentum ad verecundiam, an appeal to authority, that I do not accept. (It is also a logical fallacy.)
Reply whenever on the other thread where I tagged you, please.
Indeed it is nonsense to suggest that God’s effort to change what we do is something that can happen independent of what we do. It is downright insane. It is like saying that you can paint a black room red without the room changing its color. It is a logical contradiction. So why do people suggest such nonsense? It is because they want a “get out of jail free” indulgence card so they can keep their sins without the consequences. It is the typical “have your cake and eat it too” sort of thinking of childish and irrational sinners.
Indisputably.
The concept of “responsibility” is real among humans. Courts prove that it’s “real” there.
But in the Court of Heaven,
- Romans 3:10 As it is written:
- “There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
- “There is no one righteous, not even one;
Paraphrasing Einstein: “At the same time” is relative.
Monergism, Calvinism, bleak atheistic materialism and determinism. All synonymous concepts to me.
Vinnie
2 Likes
…shows that man is responsible in God’s eyes, too, but hopeless.
I’m not a fan of Einstein nor of Divine omnitemporality. “At the same time” in Absolute Time is good enough for me.
- From Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation (1518):
- Thesis 28. “The love of God does not find, but creates, what is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through what is pleasing to it.”
- The second part is clear and is accepted by all philosophers and theologians, for the object of love is its cause, assuming, according to Aristotle, that all power of the soul is passive and material and active only in receiving something. Thus it is also demonstrated that Aristotle’s philosophy is contrary to theology since in all things it seeks those things which are its own and receives rather than gives something good. The first part is clear because the love of God which lives in man loves sinners, evil persons, fools, and weaklings in order to make them righteous, good, wise, and strong. Rather than seeking its own good, the love of God flows forth and bestows good. Therefore sinners are attractive because they are loved; they are not loved because they are attractive. For this reason the love of man avoids sinners and evil persons. Thus Christ says: “For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” [Matt. 9:13]. This is the love of the cross, born of the cross, which turns in the direction where it does not find good which it may enjoy, but where it may confer good upon the bad and needy person. “It is more blessed to give than to receive” [Acts 20:35], says the Apostle. Hence Ps. 41[:1] states, “Blessed is he who considers the poor,” for the intellect cannot by nature comprehend an object which does not exist, that is the poor and needy person, but only a thing which does exist, that is the true and good. Therefore it judges according to appearances, is a respecter of persons, and judges according to that which can be seen, etc."
- Thesis 28. “The love of God does not find, but creates, what is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through what is pleasing to it.”
How about of what is true? 
The Calvinist in you should rejoice and marvel at Maggie’s testimony, I should think. How does he do that, orchestrate the several events, and at the same instant dynamically relate personally? If there is no dynamic relationship, then he is not truly our Father and we not his children, but automatons.
This may not be compelling, but check it out: The Omnitemporality of God.
(What is compelling to me is my and other’s life experiences… are you familiar with George Müller?)