Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream
1058

My Favorite Things
Home
NewsroomALL
Events | Notices | Blogs
Newest Audio | Video | Clips
Broadcasters
Church Finder
Webcast LIVE NOW!
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Language
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -1 sec
Top Sermons
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Broadcaster Dashboard
Members Only

 
USER COMMENTS BY “ BY YOUR STANDARDS, NOT ELECT ”
Page 1 | Page 2 ·  Found: 158 user comments posted recently.
News Item11/13/08 5:09 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
Actually, this isn't a fictitious conversation. We discussed truth on another thread recently and you continually asked for my religious affiliation. My point was that if someone says a true statement, or presents a good argument, religious affiliation is irrelevant. I even ended with the 2+2 example, and you didn't answer it. And indeed, you do seem to be asking a religious affiliation question. Belief in the claims of Jesus mean you are affiliated with something, whether you like it or not.

Enough already wrote:
I correct my last post, I meant 1 John 1:9
Could you verify my 'supposed' attacks on others based on church affiliation? {OTHER than the apostate RCC}
You are really stretching it by trying to say what YOU think I would say! You have carried out this make believe conversation between you and me, it is kind of comical!
Religion will send more people to hell than atheism. I am not asking your 'affiliation'; what does it take for a lost sinner to get to heaven?

News Item11/13/08 4:04 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
Technically, you mentioned I John 1:9, not 1:8.

It's simple: RCC news stories typically generate the most interesting comments on both sides of the issue. They range from helpful to near hilarity.

And, as I've said in other threads, you have a tendency to attack the person on the basis of their church affiliation, many times regardless of their arguments. If I were a Catholic and said 2+2 is 4, you would probably say "She would say that, she's a Catholic. You can't believe anything they say." If you don't know my affiliation, you have to take my points as they come, not on the basis of anything else.

enough already wrote:
BYSNE- you consistently post only concerning RCC news stories. If you aren't an RCC, then tell everyone here. Why the secrecy? You are playing games purposely, which says much about you.

News Item11/13/08 3:01 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
And you are still ignoring I John 1:8. And I've never said I'm a Catholic. Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you ends up being a Catholic by your estimation?

enough already wrote:
To those who cling to Roman Catholicism:{GG, Lance, BYSNE}

News Item11/13/08 1:42 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
e.a.:

Now I see that you have some kind of calculus for determining "wheat from chaff" sins (i.e. "This sin shows an unbeliever whereas this one can be committed by a Christian and they can still be a Christian"), it's hard to talk meaningfully about the subject. I'm glad you're not the final arbiter of these things as I would imagine the road would be much narrower than it already is for the "born again". In fact, you might end up on the road alone. Furthermore, you've already defined what it means to be born again, etc., to me. Doesn't that mean I've been given my chance and you're off the hook? But that is off subject.


News Item11/12/08 8:48 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
Once again, my only point is that the brawling is insufficient to condemn them as non-Christians. They may be Christians, they may not be. You have another argument, namely that they follow "traditions", etc., in an attempt show conclusively that they aren't Christians. Regardless of the merits of this argument, it is irrelevant to my point. You still seem to suggest that Christians don't sin, which is problematic to say the least. So, do Christians sin or don't they?

enough already wrote:
BYSNE- you say the brawl isn't sufficient to condemn them as non-Christians, although it may be a 'symptom' of a heart that hasn't been changed by God. {I prefer to use 'sign' instead of 'symptom'}

News Item11/11/08 4:36 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
Once again, the brawl isn't sufficient to condemn them as non-Christians, although it may be a symptom of a "heart that hasn't been changed by God". But, as I think we've tentatively established, the presence of any sin might be symptomatic of that as well, and Christians and non-Christians are susceptible to this criticism.

Now, the second claim you make here requires a little more consideration, but I hope we agree on the first point at least. That's all I was getting at.

enough already wrote:
If these monks are following traditions, rituals, etc. taught by men, they are not born again. Only God can save a lost sinner, Ephesians 2:8,9- For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God. {it's God's gift, He gives it to whom He chooses, based on His mercy} NOT of works, lest any man should boast".
The Greek Orthodox Church does not follow scripture alone, salvation is based on works,{performing the 7 sacraments in one's lifetime, these are the 'channels' to receive God's grace} with no eternal security. Again, NO ONE can earn their way to heaven, or work to receive grace. The Father gives His gift to whom it pleases Him to do so.
Brawling would seem to indicate one's heart has NOT been changed by God.
[/QUO

News Item11/11/08 3:41 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
Right, and I John 1:8 "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." From all you've said here, pointing out that someone sins is not a sufficient condition of that person not being a Christian, right? After all, there are many fruits of the Spirit by which someone may be judged. And you also said that the born again person is not sinless or perfect. So, Lance's position still stands it seems. Of course the bible speaks against violence, along with every other sin that I would imagine a born again person commits.

I think your comments below were very helpful for clarifying your position. I appreciate that.


News Item11/11/08 3:04 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
Perhaps I can put it another way. Lance can still assert what he said and agree with the bible verses you posted. So, my analysis applies to the way in which you used the bible verses to argue your point. It was your argument that was at issue, and your conclusion that was in question. Your point seemed to be that the true Christian doesn't sin anymore, and that is why these monks seem not to fall into that category. Did that clear things up a bit?

enough already wrote:
I quote scripture, and you want to 'analyze' God's word? I think you just like to 'pick arguments'. Then you try and 'belittle' me because I won't get on your merry go round. Perhaps your time would be better spent on your knees in prayer, asking God to search your heart for any offensive way; then open His word and seek His wisdom. As a sinner saved solely by His grace, I too will do just that.

News Item11/11/08 2:30 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
The bible is also clear and pride and foolishness.
Thanks for the well wishes. I hope you have a good day too.

enough already wrote:
Perhaps you need to educated yourself on the difference between an argument and fact sir. The bible is clear on divisive people and avoiding foolish arguments, with that said, I say to you, good day.

News Item11/11/08 2:21 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
That would be "represented", not "presented". At least get it right.
You present arguments quite a bit here and as soon as anyone tries to analyze what you've said, you seem to get offended. It's not supposed to be a debate, but instead a discussion.
Consequently, you never ask anyone for clarification; you assume you know exactly what everyone is talking about (and most of the time think they are wrong and going to hell). Perhaps you could be a little more circumspect and less combative so you will avoid falling into error like you claim everyone else does.

enough already wrote:
Who do you think you are, 'I presented your position'?!?

News Item11/11/08 12:44 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
e.a.,

I didn't twist any words. I gave the argument that it looked like you were proposing in your post. Either I represented your position correctly or not. Only you can tell me that. And I'm willing to listen (or read, for that matter). If that's not what you mean, why don't you tell me?


enough already wrote:
Twisting other people's words is exactly what leads to all kinds of problems. It is also what breeds false beliefs [i.e.- the twisting of God's word]. I stand by my post, however, you may read into it whatever your mind and heart desires.

News Item11/11/08 12:55 AM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
If not explicitly, it was implied.

You seem to agree with pew view (against Lance at least) in which case your argument looks something like the following: If one is a Christian, then one wouldn't get into a fight (or commit the list of sins you wrote below). However, one does indeed commit those sins (the monks fist fighting). Therefore, one must not be a Christian ("Do we need anymore proof than this to perceive that many in the so called churches are NOT Christian?").

enough already wrote:
Is that what my post said?

News Item11/10/08 11:33 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
So, e.a., are you saying that you don't sin now that you're born again?

enough already wrote:
ONLY GOD can change the sinful heart of man; once one is born again, their thoughts, speech, and actions are changed forevermore. They are a 'new creation in Christ'.

News Item11/10/08 7:26 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
66
comments
pew view,

So, if you're right, then God made them fight. Either way, it's not their fault, or is it?

pew view wrote:
"Fighting erupted between Greek Orthodox and Armenian monks at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the traditional site of Christ's crucifixion."
Do we need any more proof than this to perceive that many in the so called churches are NOT really Christian?
It has to be noticed that these are typical free willer denoms and iconolatry is very much their religion.

News Item11/6/08 7:51 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
146
comments
KK:

How do you write such long posts? I can't seem to get it to let me write one nearly as long as the ones you do.

KK wrote:
Neil / Tucson
The real problem with the Republican party is this -- they failed their base supporters ----- they had the ability to implement REAL CHANGE FOR THE GOOD OF THIS COUNTRY (they could have used "The Nuclear Option"), but they became lofty minded drunken fools (corrupted with the intoxicating power of the superiority of their position in DC) and as a result they sold their souls betraying themselves, GOD and "We The People" !!!

KK


News Item11/6/08 2:09 AM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
42
comments
Caloric fluid and phlogiston are interesting and instructive examples.

My suggestion is that if you have dinner with Hume (and his philosophy), you'd better bring a long spoon. He has a tendency to eat his own. His skepticism with regards to induction is based on his empiricism, which is directly related to Descartes' theory and standard of knowledge. In order to be humble with regards to knowledge claims, we don't have to buy Hume. Indeed, if you buy Hume's epistemology, you can't 'know' contingent facts at all. That includes facts deduced from Scripture.

Neil wrote:
Yes, heuristic is a good word to describe such equations.
I don't deal with chemistry deeply or often enough to answer your question knowledgeably. In fact, I've never heard of the distinction (though I understand the terms).

News Item11/5/08 6:17 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
42
comments
Once again, the example of classical mechanics is tricky. The clear defeater above is mentioned in the case of argumentation, not scientific hypothesis. There's a debate as to how one should take the laws of classical mechanics, and indeed how they were to be taken (Newton himself considered it experimental philosophy which should be distinguished from some kind of mechanical metaphysics). If they are seen as a model, they may be a useful heuristic to give insight into nature. And there are scientists who don't make the mistake of saying a model is the phenomena itself (a mistake of early modern science). Also, Newtonian physics is sometimes taken as being a metaphysical schema limiting causation to billiard ball mechanics. And that is philosophically debatable (and has been historically). Also, wouldn't you say there is a relation between classical mechanics and relativity theory that there fails to be between oxidative chemistry and caloric chemistry?

Sometimes the loudest scientists (and philosophers of science) don't have the most nuanced views. Take a look at the history of scientific reduction and this comes out pretty strongly.


News Item11/5/08 4:55 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
42
comments
Neil,

First, we have to be careful not to make a strawman argument out of scientific claims. There are different ways scientists view the propositions and models in their respective fields. Scientists don't see the universe through the lens of Newtonian physics. And, it's not clear, as some historians of science suggest, that Newton saw his own laws as being categorical like many claim.

Second, inductive arguments are not fallacious per se. Remember, validity has to do with the way in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Just because a conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from the premises (hence invalidity) doesn't mean that an argument isn't strong. Validity is only one test for the way in which premises support conclusions. Strength is another. In the absence of clear defeaters, one is justified in asserting the truth of the conclusion. Also, one would have to specify what kind of inductive argument one is claiming to make, since there are different kinds of inductive arguments and not all of them are from "particular to universal". Inductive arguments can have all universal propositions as well.

Also, isn't something "true by definition" necessary, not contingent? It's not a contingent fact that "All unmarried males are bachelors"


News Item11/4/08 6:27 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
42
comments
I assume that your view of perception is connected to your view of the empirical sciences, and your standards for what counts as knowledge. This is why I asked for the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge. Depending on your view on this, induction may or may not give us knowledge. Your position looks Humean, and he was not only an empiricist but a skeptic as well.

Let's take an empirical claim such as "Human sexual reproduction consists of an ovum and a sperm uniting in a process called fertilization." Would you claim that although true, we cannot "know" this?

Neil wrote:
What I question is categorical claims they infer from such "experiences." That is what I mean by "empirical science" - drawing conclusions about nature by observation.

News Item11/3/08 9:48 PM
By Your Standards, Not Elect | Oblivion  Find all comments by By Your Standards, Not Elect
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
42
comments
Questions about logical consistency are different than a tu quoque fallacy, the latter which I did not commit here. It seems that you impugn experience altogether. This is perhaps what I don't understand about your position.

I'm not sure how your position doesn't fall into Scripturalism, as you put it, since everything that can be known must be deduced from Scripture. Even if one accepts classical logic, you still have to establish the truth of the premises; validity isn't sufficient. And I think we would agree that establishing the truth of premises can be difficult. Also, I think it would need to be clarified just what type of empirical science we're talking about here.

Jump to Page : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8





Technology, Not Techniques

Shawn Reynolds
Abundant Mercy For Life in Him

Sovereign Grace Church
Sunday Service
Play! | MP3

Mark S. Wisniewski
Sobreviviendo El Juicio

Lucas - Spanish 2023
Iglesia Nueva Obra en...
Play! | MP3

Dr. Fred DeRuvo
Daniel 7 Pt 3 Interpretation..

Book of Daniel
Study-Grow-Know Ministries
Video!Play! | MP4

Sponsor:
New Podcast for Pastors from NAMB

Join podc­ast host, Ken Whitten & guests Tony Dungy, H.B. Charlr­es, Jr. & more.
https://www.namb.net/podcas..

Sponsor:
The Book Of Romans

Join Pastor Thomas Irvin for a study thr­ough the book of Rom­ans, verse by verse, at G
https://www.sermonaudio.com..

Sermon: Exodus#111 The Atonement fro..
Dr. James M. Phillips

SPONSOR | 4,800+

SPONSOR



SA UPDATES NEWSLETTER Sign up for a weekly dose of personal thoughts along with interesting content updates. Sign Up
FOLLOW US


Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
ChurchOne App
Watch
Android
ChurchOne App
Fire Tablet
Wear
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV
Amazon Echo
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
TECH TALKS

NEWS
Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe
Staff Picks | RSS
SA Newsroom
SERVICES
Dashboard | Info
Cross Publish
Audio | Video | Stats
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Webcast | Multicast
Solo Sites
Internationalization
Podcasting
Listen Line
Events | Notices
Transcription
Business Cards New!
QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BLB
JSON API

BATCH
Upload via RSS
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox

SUPPORT
Advertising | Local Ads
Support Us
Stories
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Earn SA COINS!
Privacy Policy

THE VAULT VLOG
Technology, Not Techniques New!
Copyright © 2024 SermonAudio.