Eaton County

County clerk office. Hours of operation and cost of genealogy research.

Eaton County Fair

Schedule of events, judging and activities. Image gallery and amusements.

Eaton County Road Commission

Responsible for nearly 1,150 miles of county roads. The majority lie outside incorporated areas. ECRC also provides traffic control and maintains the roadsides.

Eaton County Sheriff's Department

General information about the department, field services division, administrative services, and corrections division with inmate information.

Eaton County, Michigan

The County's source for information.

Eaton County, Michigan - InfoMI

History of the county. Links to local businesses, schools, recreation, and weather.

Highfields Wraparound Services

Provides resources and programs with FIA to help parents facing serious behavioral problems with children.

MIGenWeb Archives - Cemetery

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

Hi Matthew:

Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article <105.01.19.05.807305000@srcbs.org>, Gary McNees says...
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>God doesn't "foresee."
>
>
> Although I approve of the zeal with which you oppose the delusion of Calvinism,
> I think you have overstepped the bounds of what is proper here: 'foresee' is a
> defensible translation of G4267 (PROGINWSKW) in Rom 8:29.
>
>
Foresee is an accommodation to our natures.

It is a "anthropomorphism."

God's knowledge is of all things, past, present, and future.

Hence He condescends to us, to speak of His "foreknowing."

But to Him it is present knowledge.

To us what has not yet happened is future, but to God
it is present.

But I do not want to quibble. If you insist, its OK by me.

Gary

((( 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. )))

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Mike Rhodes
wrote:

>Note: This post uses 2 Peter 3 as its reference. I had assumed this
>was actually Peter's letter, but then found a discussion saying some
>early authorities don't believe Peter wrote this. Having read that I
>now tend to agree. It seems that the writer's purpose was to do war
>against Paul's error, and may have assumed Peter's identity just for
>that reason. Nevertheless, I agree with his reason, whether or not
>Peter actually wrote it.

Supposition of an argument: If all Peter can do is give a hidden
complaint at Paul, as in 2 Peter, and not take full authority by
saying outright that Paul was wrong, then Paul, his doctrine and his
followers win validation. While Peter can only be angry about it. (?)
So let him be angry—they think.

But a number of authorities do not accept 2 Peter as Peter's. And
regardless of author, the discussion is not without merit.

And Paul's words do not match Christ's; neither before nor after His
death and resurrection.

If so, then you're showing _desparation_, and grasping at straws (and
the keys to the kingdom?)

Don't you want the truth?

Or has too much been invested in something else? I'm sure glad I'm
not in your shoes...
--
Mike


((( 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 ,
dell12345 says...

>When Jesus said “and I rejoice on YOUR account that I
>was not there, in order for YOU to believe”, the