UTExan said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

SW AG80 said:

---

It sounds like you are throwing common sense to the wind. I think that is what people question. As mentioned, in today's world, use your cell phone and call for help. I am a AAA member and they will send someone out to help even if I do not own that car.

Much safer for all concerned.

---

I'm not trying to argue against common sense. However, there is no way to be 100% safe when helping someone. Whether it's helping with a flat tire, treating a sick person in the hospital, or running a homeless shelter. Doing good comes with risk. Even stopping, calling AAA and sitting in your car doesn't really make you safe. Even if you drive off, maybe they attack the AAA guy. I'm just advocating doing the right thing and letting the chips fall where they may, and most of all not letting fear of negative consequences get in the way of doing good

---

First of all, are you an ID doc? Even if not, you are aware that viruses and bacteria operate by natural laws and to preserve human health we have prophylaxes to mitigate the effects of pathogens. Human predators often act in a similar fashion as those pathogens: looking for a weak spot to exploit and destroy healthy living cells. Removing the predatory from society is really the same as fighting diseases and is not an exercise in revenge; it is merely a response to limit the damage the pathogen can do. IDK any more theologically profound way to convey this, but if a predator refuses to respond to the gospel of grace and curtail his predatory activity, then society must step in to limit that damage. Hence, Paul's admonition to pray for those in authority so that we could have peace and order.

---

I'm a rural doc, or a "mix of everything" doc. I'm a bit shocked at a Christian comparing human beings, even if they are predators, to viruses or bacteria. God loves those people just as much as he loves you. They have the same capacity for goodness and redemption as anyone else. They might be bad people making bad choices, but that doesn't mean they can't repent and change. There's nothing in Christianity about making the world better by killing bad people, and there's a whole lot in Christianity about making the world better by turning bad people into good people.

Well, God made all of Creation, even if it is fallen and corrupted by man's sin. God created human government to deal with human evil. While Paul does not endorse evil governors or governments, he does lay out the need for it to restrain evil. Judges may indeed offer justice tempered by mercy, but that is in the courtroom. To restrain malevolent, murderous evil at the time it is happening when there is no regard for law, we are given the rights of both self- and national defense.

UTExan said:

---

Well, God made all of Creation, even if it is fallen and corrupted by man's sin. God created human government to deal with human evil. While Paul does not endorse evil governors or governments, he does lay out the need for it to restrain evil. Judges may indeed offer justice tempered by mercy, but that is in the courtroom. To restrain malevolent, murderous evil at the time it is happening when there is no regard for law, we are given the rights of both self- and national defense.

---

Only going from the Catholic perspective here (although Derm may appreciate this) but the punishment in this life is supposed to be for the reforming of the soul. Take death penalty: if you aren't going to repent with a noose around your neck, will any number of years in addition lead you to repentance? Isn't it much more likely you'll rot in prison for 20 more years just as wicked as you were when you went in?

So yes, the noose is there to punish you for your evil, but with the hope that you will be asking for forgiveness on your way out of this life and be joined with God.

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

It might be good work, but it won't save that atheist soldier. All men have the law of God written on their hearts so we instinctively know between good & bad.

---

The question then arises: why was he atheist?

Was it because he chose to reject a God that is all loving and wants everyone to choose Him? Was it because God didn't give him the grace to say yes? Was it because, as a child, he was told that God only chooses a certain few to be saved, intentionally leaving the unsaved behind? A proposition he felt was morally reprehensible? Or did he just choose a materialistic life because all there is is the here and now?

Weird that a guy who chose to live for worldly pleasures would give up his life for another, so maybe there are some confounding issues?

---

I don't know, people reject God for many reasons. Many simply write it off as a fairy tale. I don't think it's shocking that an atheist would sacrifice themselves, that type of heroism is ingrained in us.

Actually, facing death or danger of physical injury tends to focus the mind very efficiently. It is the "toxic compassion" of social and theological progressivism which fails to hold offenders accountable that weakens society and respect for its laws. It is one thing to protest against unjust administration of civil law penalties such as capital punishment; it is quite another to demand its abolition.

Frok said:

---

It might be good work, but it won't save that atheist soldier. All men have the law of God written on their hearts so we instinctively know between good & bad.

---

What Frok said

Frok said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

It might be good work, but it won't save that atheist soldier. All men have the law of God written on their hearts so we instinctively know between good & bad.

---

The question then arises: why was he atheist?

Was it because he chose to reject a God that is all loving and wants everyone to choose Him? Was it because God didn't give him the grace to say yes? Was it because, as a child, he was told that God only chooses a certain few to be saved, intentionally leaving the unsaved behind? A proposition he felt was morally reprehensible? Or did he just choose a materialistic life because all there is is the here and now?

Weird that a guy who chose to live for worldly pleasures would give up his life for another, so maybe there are some confounding issues?

---

I don't know, people reject God for many reasons. Many simply write it off as a fairy tale. I don't think it's shocking that an atheist would sacrifice themselves, that type of heroism is ingrained in us.

---

So it's ingrained in us. Ok. Now back to Derm's question: are there different "tiers" of good? Or is good good and bad bad.

We can agree we are not saved without God, but are men capable of doing good while in unbelief? This is the difference between original sin and total depravity doctrines.

ETA: for context, this is the doctrine of total depravity

This does not mean that apart from God people can't do seemingly good things. After all, a non-Christian can help an old lady cross the street, but their inward hostility against God and their corrupted nature make even that "good" action depraved in the eyes of God. Because everything in us is affected by sin, we cannot escape sin in anything that we do.

https://johncalvin.com/five-points-of-calvinism/

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

It might be good work, but it won't save that atheist soldier. All men have the law of God written on their hearts so we instinctively know between good & bad.

---

The question then arises: why was he atheist?

Was it because he chose to reject a God that is all loving and wants everyone to choose Him? Was it because God didn't give him the grace to say yes? Was it because, as a child, he was told that God only chooses a certain few to be saved, intentionally leaving the unsaved behind? A proposition he felt was morally reprehensible? Or did he just choose a materialistic life because all there is is the here and now?

Weird that a guy who chose to live for worldly pleasures would give up his life for another, so maybe there are some confounding issues?

---

I don't know, people reject God for many reasons. Many simply write it off as a fairy tale. I don't think it's shocking that an atheist would sacrifice themselves, that type of heroism is ingrained in us.

---

So it's ingrained in us. Ok. Now back to Derm's question: are there different "tiers" of good? Or is good good and bad bad.

We can agree we are not saved without God, but are men capable of doing good while in unbelief? This is the difference between original sin and total depravity doctrines.

ETA: for context, this is the doctrine of total depravity

This does not mean that apart from God people can't do seemingly good things. After all, a non-Christian can help an old lady cross the street, but their inward hostility against God and their corrupted nature make even that "good" action depraved in the eyes of God. Because everything in us is affected by sin, we cannot escape sin in anything that we do.

https://johncalvin.com/five-points-of-calvinism/

---

If all goodness comes from cooperation with God (which I totally agree with), then where do "seemingly good" acts come from? I understand insincere good acts or acts done out of selfishness, but what if none of that applies? What if someone who is not Christian/Elect/reformed/Calvinist does a good deed just because they thought they should? How can that happen if God is not involved at all?

All good things ultimately stem from God. Anything good a human does is attributable to God. As Frok mentioned, the law of God is written on man's heart.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

All good things ultimately stem from God. Anything good a human does is attributable to God. As Frok mentioned, the law of God is written on man's heart.

---

But it's not a good thing. It's a "seemingly" good thing. The self sacrifice to save others was still evil despite its appearance of good.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

It might be good work, but it won't save that atheist soldier. All men have the law of God written on their hearts so we instinctively know between good & bad.

---

The question then arises: why was he atheist?

Was it because he chose to reject a God that is all loving and wants everyone to choose Him? Was it because God didn't give him the grace to say yes? Was it because, as a child, he was told that God only chooses a certain few to be saved, intentionally leaving the unsaved behind? A proposition he felt was morally reprehensible? Or did he just choose a materialistic life because all there is is the here and now?

Weird that a guy who chose to live for worldly pleasures would give up his life for another, so maybe there are some confounding issues?

---

I don't know, people reject God for many reasons. Many simply write it off as a fairy tale. I don't think it's shocking that an atheist would sacrifice themselves, that type of heroism is ingrained in us.

---

So it's ingrained in us. Ok. Now back to Derm's question: are there different "tiers" of good? Or is good good and bad bad.

We can agree we are not saved without God, but are men capable of doing good while in unbelief? This is the difference between original sin and total depravity doctrines.

ETA: for context, this is the doctrine of total depravity

This does not mean that apart from God people can't do seemingly good things. After all, a non-Christian can help an old lady cross the street, but their inward hostility against God and their corrupted nature make even that "good" action depraved in the eyes of God. Because everything in us is affected by sin, we cannot escape sin in anything that we do.

https://johncalvin.com/five-points-of-calvinism/

---

If all goodness comes from cooperation with God (which I totally agree with), then where do "seemingly good" acts come from? I understand insincere good acts or acts done out of selfishness, but what if none of that applies? What if someone who is not Christian/Elect/reformed/Calvinist does a good deed just because they thought they should? How can that happen if God is not involved at all?

---

The issue you're dealing with here is "cooperation" with God. the reformers did not believe this to be possible.

ETA: this is why I have come to stand on monergism being the foundation for the reformation. There are ways to make "faith alone by grace alone" work in a synergistic model, but they went against that route because it was too Catholic. As long as there is "nothing we can contribute to our own salvation" this is going to be the end result.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

All good things ultimately stem from God. Anything good a human does is attributable to God. As Frok mentioned, the law of God is written on man's heart.

---

But it's not a good thing. It's a "seemingly" good thing. The self sacrifice to save others was still evil despite its appearance of good.

---

God will use it even the atheistic "good deeds" for his ultimate good and glory

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

All good things ultimately stem from God. Anything good a human does is attributable to God. As Frok mentioned, the law of God is written on man's heart.

---

But it's not a good thing. It's a "seemingly" good thing. The self sacrifice to save others was still evil despite its appearance of good.

---

God will use it even the atheistic "good deeds" for his ultimate good and glory

---

I agree. But the obvious next logical step from there is that "good deeds" done by non Christians are still good.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

All good things ultimately stem from God. Anything good a human does is attributable to God. As Frok mentioned, the law of God is written on man's heart.

---

But it's not a good thing. It's a "seemingly" good thing. The self sacrifice to save others was still evil despite its appearance of good.

---

God will use it even the atheistic "good deeds" for his ultimate good and glory

---

I'm not saying He can't use evil deeds for His glory. It's just really odd to say that jumping on a grenade with the wrong faith is still a depraved act. Or saving a baby from the river. Or giving of one's own assets at the pain of this physical life. All of those done without proper faith, even if you have never had the chance to hear the name of Jesus, is still a depraved action in God's eyes

That is what total depravity is.

The Banned said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

It might be good work, but it won't save that atheist soldier. All men have the law of God written on their hearts so we instinctively know between good & bad.

---

The question then arises: why was he atheist?

Was it because he chose to reject a God that is all loving and wants everyone to choose Him? Was it because God didn't give him the grace to say yes? Was it because, as a child, he was told that God only chooses a certain few to be saved, intentionally leaving the unsaved behind? A proposition he felt was morally reprehensible? Or did he just choose a materialistic life because all there is is the here and now?

Weird that a guy who chose to live for worldly pleasures would give up his life for another, so maybe there are some confounding issues?

---

I don't know, people reject God for many reasons. Many simply write it off as a fairy tale. I don't think it's shocking that an atheist would sacrifice themselves, that type of heroism is ingrained in us.

---

So it's ingrained in us. Ok. Now back to Derm's question: are there different "tiers" of good? Or is good good and bad bad.

We can agree we are not saved without God, but are men capable of doing good while in unbelief? This is the difference between original sin and total depravity doctrines.

ETA: for context, this is the doctrine of total depravity

This does not mean that apart from God people can't do seemingly good things. After all, a non-Christian can help an old lady cross the street, but their inward hostility against God and their corrupted nature make even that "good" action depraved in the eyes of God. Because everything in us is affected by sin, we cannot escape sin in anything that we do.

https://johncalvin.com/five-points-of-calvinism/

---

If all goodness comes from cooperation with God (which I totally agree with), then where do "seemingly good" acts come from? I understand insincere good acts or acts done out of selfishness, but what if none of that applies? What if someone who is not Christian/Elect/reformed/Calvinist does a good deed just because they thought they should? How can that happen if God is not involved at all?

---

The issue you're dealing with here is "cooperation" with God. the reformers did not believe this to be possible.

ETA: this is why I have come to stand on monergism being the foundation for the reformation. There are ways to make "faith alone by grace alone" work in a synergistic model, but they went against that route because it was too Catholic. As long as there is "nothing we can contribute to our own salvation" this is going to be the end result.

---

How do you reconcile the picture of adoption that is often portrayed in the Bible? I have never adopted a child, but I know others who have. From my understanding, the children being adopted had zero say in whether or not they would be adopted. It was a solo act by the adopting parents.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Frok said:

---

It might be good work, but it won't save that atheist soldier. All men have the law of God written on their hearts so we instinctively know between good & bad.

---

The question then arises: why was he atheist?

Was it because he chose to reject a God that is all loving and wants everyone to choose Him? Was it because God didn't give him the grace to say yes? Was it because, as a child, he was told that God only chooses a certain few to be saved, intentionally leaving the unsaved behind? A proposition he felt was morally reprehensible? Or did he just choose a materialistic life because all there is is the here and now?

Weird that a guy who chose to live for worldly pleasures would give up his life for another, so maybe there are some confounding issues?

---

I don't know, people reject God for many reasons. Many simply write it off as a fairy tale. I don't think it's shocking that an atheist would sacrifice themselves, that type of heroism is ingrained in us.

---

So it's ingrained in us. Ok. Now back to Derm's question: are there different "tiers" of good? Or is good good and bad bad.

We can agree we are not saved without God, but are men capable of doing good while in unbelief? This is the difference between original sin and total depravity doctrines.

ETA: for context, this is the doctrine of total depravity

This does not mean that apart from God people can't do seemingly good things. After all, a non-Christian can help an old lady cross the street, but their inward hostility against God and their corrupted nature make even that "good" action depraved in the eyes of God. Because everything in us is affected by sin, we cannot escape sin in anything that we do.

https://johncalvin.com/five-points-of-calvinism/

---

If all goodness comes from cooperation with God (which I totally agree with), then where do "seemingly good" acts come from? I understand insincere good acts or acts done out of selfishness, but what if none of that applies? What if someone who is not Christian/Elect/reformed/Calvinist does a good deed just because they thought they should? How can that happen if God is not involved at all?

---

The issue you're dealing with here is "cooperation" with God. the reformers did not believe this to be possible.

ETA: this is why I have come to stand on monergism being the foundation for the reformation. There are ways to make "faith alone by grace alone" work in a synergistic model, but they went against that route because it was too Catholic. As long as there is "nothing we can contribute to our own salvation" this is going to be the end result.

---

How do you reconcile the picture of adoption that is often portrayed in the Bible? I have never adopted a child, but I know others who have. From my understanding, the children being adopted had zero say in whether or not they would be adopted. It was a solo act by the adopting parents.

---

A wonderful argument for infant baptism, in my opinion

But looking past that at the intent of your question: can they adopt a 19 year old without the consent of the 19 year old? Does the 19 year not have a say in whether or not they are adopted?

If we want to speak of an infant, then does the infant not later have the choice to leave the family? To scream "you're not my real parents!!", leave the house, change their number and never return? And if they don't leave the family in their adult years, are they not then, by definition, choosing to stay adopted?

Or, once adopted by God, do we stay infants with no control over our lives, nullifying free will as a whole, making this whole thread a fun game God is playing with us?

Legally, I think the adoptive parents will always be the parents, but I am no expert in family law.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Legally, I think the adoptive parents will always be the parents, but I am no expert in family law.

---

Emancipation would legally set them free.

But will say this is the basis used for free grace/cheap grace theology. No matter how much you turn away and sin, you're still family. Meaning one can become an abortion doctor that teaches atheism to elementary schoolers in your free time and you're still saved. And yes, this is believed by a number of Christians.

I have come to the conclusion that the debate over monergism vs synergism will never be conclusively solved until we are in the presence of the Lord. And I am finally okay with that.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Legally, I think the adoptive parents will always be the parents, but I am no expert in family law.

---

Emancipation would legally set them free.

But will say this is the basis used for free grace/cheap grace theology. No matter how much you turn away and sin, you're still family. Meaning one can become an abortion doctor that teaches atheism to elementary schoolers in your free time and you're still saved. And yes, this is believed by a number of Christians.

---

Am I to sin so that grace abounds? By no means!

In the meantime, I will give all of you a virtual high five for being much less depraved than I am in order to choose to follow God on your own terms.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

In the meantime, I will give all of you a virtual high five for being much less depraved than I am in order to choose to follow God on your own terms.

---

I do not think you were as depraved as you think you were.

Frok said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Legally, I think the adoptive parents will always be the parents, but I am no expert in family law.

---

Emancipation would legally set them free.

But will say this is the basis used for free grace/cheap grace theology. No matter how much you turn away and sin, you're still family. Meaning one can become an abortion doctor that teaches atheism to elementary schoolers in your free time and you're still saved. And yes, this is believed by a number of Christians.

---

Am I to sin so that grace abounds? By no means!

---

What is fascinating to me is that in my own personal experience the more grace conscious I have gotten, the more I witness and spread the Gospel. When I was fear driven by hell, I never shared my testimony or the Gospel. And except for maybe too much red wine, I have severely cut down knowingly sinning.

I do not think fear works. And I think the belief of Christians that without that fear that it will sow sin is not actually what happens.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

In the meantime, I will give all of you a virtual high five for being much less depraved than I am in order to choose to follow God on your own terms.

---

And I chose God on His terms.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

In the meantime, I will give all of you a virtual high five for being much less depraved than I am in order to choose to follow God on your own terms.

---

I do not think you were as depraved as you think you were.

---

"Oh, I don't think I'm less depraved than you think that I thought that I thought that I was once"

- White Goodman if he was on this TexAgs thread.

But seriously, none of us are totally depraved. We're all made in God's image. He calls all of us. We're all equally free, unfortunately all equally fallen, but none of us are equally chained to a depraved nature.

dermdoc said:

---

I have come to the conclusion that the debate over monergism vs synergism will never be conclusively solved until we are in the presence of the Lord. And I am finally okay with that.

---

But it was settled… it's all cohesive. The waters have just been muddied.

Frok said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Legally, I think the adoptive parents will always be the parents, but I am no expert in family law.

---

Emancipation would legally set them free.

But will say this is the basis used for free grace/cheap grace theology. No matter how much you turn away and sin, you're still family. Meaning one can become an abortion doctor that teaches atheism to elementary schoolers in your free time and you're still saved. And yes, this is believed by a number of Christians.

---

Am I to sin so that grace abounds? By no means!

---

I agree. Which is why synergism and OSAS doesn't work.

dermdoc said:

---

Frok said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Legally, I think the adoptive parents will always be the parents, but I am no expert in family law.

---

Emancipation would legally set them free.

But will say this is the basis used for free grace/cheap grace theology. No matter how much you turn away and sin, you're still family. Meaning one can become an abortion doctor that teaches atheism to elementary schoolers in your free time and you're still saved. And yes, this is believed by a number of Christians.

---

Am I to sin so that grace abounds? By no means!

---

What is fascinating to me is that in my own personal experience the more grace conscious I have gotten, the more I witness and spread the Gospel. When I was fear driven by hell, I never shared my testimony or the Gospel. And except for maybe too much red wine, I have severely cut down knowingly sinning.

I do not think fear works. And I think the belief of Christians that without that fear that it will sow sin is not actually what happens.

---

I quoted the passage that literally says we are now under GRACE and not under the law. Not sure how that is driving people to Christ through fear.

Frok said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Frok said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Legally, I think the adoptive parents will always be the parents, but I am no expert in family law.

---

Emancipation would legally set them free.

But will say this is the basis used for free grace/cheap grace theology. No matter how much you turn away and sin, you're still family. Meaning one can become an abortion doctor that teaches atheism to elementary schoolers in your free time and you're still saved. And yes, this is believed by a number of Christians.

---

Am I to sin so that grace abounds? By no means!

---

What is fascinating to me is that in my own personal experience the more grace conscious I have gotten, the more I witness and spread the Gospel. When I was fear driven by hell, I never shared my testimony or the Gospel. And except for maybe too much red wine, I have severely cut down knowingly sinning.

I do not think fear works. And I think the belief of Christians that without that fear that it will sow sin is not actually what happens.

---

I quoted the passage that literally says we are now under GRACE and not under the law. Not sure how that is driving people to Christ through fear.

---

I was agreeing with you. Sorry for any misunderstanding.