the forensic declaration of innocence
you mean the one Job makes again and again, in chapter 6, in chapter 7, in chapter 9 . . . ?
the forensic declaration of innocence
Nope, those aren't sworn oaths merely declarations and protestations. It's not until Job 31(I realize earlier I stated 27 but I rechecked) that he invokes the sworn oath of innocence.you mean the one Job makes again and again, in chapter 6, in chapter 7, in chapter 9 . . . ?
CorrectionAnother couple of thoughts:
1) We are not being redeemed to get more of what we already have. We are getting that of which we have nothing whatsoever.
2) Jesus is seeking sheep that have simply lost their way in terms of direction. He is seeking sheep who are spiriually lost to eternal judgement.
3) Redemption provides and prevents. Provides restoration to the position that has been lost. And thereby prevents inevitable judgement to eternal hell.
This business that lost sinners are being redeemed due to some kind of INTRINSIC WORTH is unscriptural nonsense.
No, not saying that at all.Are you saying we’re not to Glorify God?...by the way,this post is confused,it’s written all over it....” confusion”...no offence.
Ok. Well then, I'm calling that a victory because the it appears the opponents have no futher motions or arguments for the bench.That one? Fine, here's my answer:
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
My discretion in answering you is not for lack of answers, but because what you have displayed through this thread.Ok. Well then, I'm calling that a victory because the it appears the opponents have no futher motions or arguments for the bench.
Looks like the detractors have no answer to the reformed doctrinal position. Pretty predictable if you understand your bible.
Let's take the mention of Adam to its logical conclusion, and see why God offers the gift of eternal life freely to all mankind through Christ.What did God breath into Adam?......to bring him alive?....
That's because you're unfamiliar with the forensic language and procedures I am speaking of. Job's oath is the if...then statements where he puts his being in peril in order to forward a final defense. It's a last ditch form of non-rational proof that was acceptible in the ANE trials after all means of rational proof had expired. It is a formal oath of innocence that calls on the deity to answer, in Job's case God Himself. A typical theodicy from the era would have ended with an Elihu coming in and answering for the deity and that would have been it, the gods are super powerful and men are worms with no rights. Case closed. But Job is different precisely because God answers for Himself. And in answering for Himself and not enforcing the terms of Jobs if...then statements God renders verdict, though the reader already knows the verdict from the start. And God's answers only superficially agree with Elihu's because they speak to God's majesty, yet the aspects and conclusions diverge in key places which are beyond the scope of these back and forths for me to expound on.no different than 13:22-23, in fact less direct.
Dude. You got your clock cleaned buddy. Seriously it was a cringeworthy rout. Just sayin'.My discretion in answering you is not for lack of answers, but because what you have displayed through this thread.
You completely missed the work of God because you were caught up in defending your precious doctrine. You even hindered it in places. Rather than forwarding the cause of the gospel your pride blinded you.
That's because you're unfamiliar with the forensic language and procedures I am speaking of.
Dude. You got your clock cleaned buddy. Seriously it was a cringeworthy rout. Just sayin'.
I have yet to hear anything substantial enough to put a dent in reformed theology.
I really was hoping that I would......but it never happened.
And between this and the other threaded must amount to a couple of hundred pages by now.
Elihu certainly makes the accusation, but God in no way brushes the pretext away considering that He speaks to Job and confronts Job according to the terms of the oath. God rebukes Job for speaking against His character through saying things like it matters not if we sin or don't sin since calamity comes upon all, but that is distinctly different from the typical response of these types of works. God doesn't say Job is out of place to speak at all or to expect justice from God, but Job went beyond that.you're right that i'm not Babylonian.
it doesn't matter Job if has invoked a Babylonian oath against God. both Elihu and God brush the pretext away, Elihu explicitly and God implicitly, proclaiming wisdom: fear the LORD, who are you to complain without knowledge?
it does not make Elihu out of place. it makes Job out of place to speak -- which is Elihu's message to him, and is God's message to him, and which Job understands, and righteously agrees to. he puts his hand over his mouth. it makes Elihu's burden to say this to Job, holy.
As I said, you're so worried about your precious doctrine you ignore the work of God.Dude. You got your clock cleaned buddy. Seriously it was a cringeworthy rout. Just sayin'.
I have yet to hear anything substantial enough to put a dent in reformed theology.
I really was hoping that I would......but it never happened.
And between this and the other threaded must amount to a couple of hundred pages by now.
As I said, you're so worried about your precious doctrine you ignore the work of God.
So keep worrying about winning arguments. Your blood is on your own head.
You know I was just hoping for so much more. Never happened.As I said, you're so worried about your precious doctrine you ignore the work of God.
So keep worrying about winning arguments. Your blood is on your own head.
Maybe, like Job you should put your hand over your mouth?Salvation based on exclusivity meaning..... God selects an exclusive, elite few when He could select all ......is evil and is a sure sign of a false religion that is utterly disconnected from scripture.
I feel the same. Though in a couple of different manners.You know I was just hoping for so much more. Never happened.
That's all well and good. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.I feel the same. Though in a couple of different manners.
Not purely because the lack of substance to anything you say, your empty tired arguments are the same as any good indoctrinated robot of Calvinism, but even more so at your lack of discernment for the spiritual battle that was raging. It's quite clear your accusations about natural men is true from your complete insensibility.