County clerks office. Genealogy research hours and costs.

Local government information.

Brief history with photo, business listings, churches, organizations, and area activities.

Crawford county cemetery records available for download in text file format.

In article <143.48.18.05.923983000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>

[snip]

>Sure. But, once again, you _assume_ that a command or exhortation
>carries with it the ability to do it.

Sure, it does.

> It does not, as Paul so
>abundantly makes clear.

No, Paul does NOT do this.

> "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the
>leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing
>evil." [Jer 13:23]

You are quoting Jeremiah, not Paul. And you are quoting him out of context, too.

Perhaps if you had paid closer attention to the context, you would have noticed
how Christ contradicts your interpretation when He says:

Among men this is impossible; but with God all things
are possible (Mt 19:26)

So no, you cannot say this is impossible, just base on the Jeremiah quote.


[snip]

>Once again, a circular argument, which I dealt with in another post.

And you dealt with it badly there, too. In fact, I have noticed that you and a
couple other 'Reform theology' advocates are _fond_ of making this accusation,
but then whenever you are asked to back it up, you fail to do so.

Back it up, Bob. If it really is circular, show us the sequence of propositions
that are in a circle.

>
>> 1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge
>> of the truth.
>>
>
>Bart dealt with this;

And he dealt with it very badly.

> at issue is whether God's desires are complex or
>simple.

What? No. Also at issue is whether there is a distinction between 'desire' or
'will' here.

> Bart happens to be right on this one, God has multiple desires.

No, Bart was not right, and that was not even what Bart said! You have got to
pay closer attention before you make these assertions.

Besides: you are introducing weakness into the divine nature when you say this!
What is more, you are introducing the very _same_ weakness you deny in the
traditional Reform misinterpretation of Jeremiah 1:11-12.

You Reform eisegetes are so contradictory! How can you claim to protect the
doctrine of the sovereignty of God by saying that what He wills must come to
pass in Jer 1:11-12, but deny it in 1 Tim 4:2?


--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( 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. )))

In article <167.06.14.05.483904000@srcbs.org>, Paul Chapman says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> I