Lest We Forget, Chung
Al
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> In truth, an unmoderated usenet forum is not controlled by anyone but
> GOD (Proverbs 16:33).
So Chung, this is in Proverbs? More proof of how sick you really are.
and now
rapidly becoming a laughing stock as well as a blatant liar.
And PLEASE don't forget this gem...the one where he denied performing an
exorcism, but we have it in one of his posts!
Chris
> You are a proven liar, unable to admit it ...
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >
> > In truth, an unmoderated usenet forum is not controlled by anyone but
> > GOD (Proverbs 16:33).
>
> So Chung, this is in Proverbs? More proof of how sick you really are.
> and now
> rapidly becoming a laughing stock as well as a blatant liar.
>
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
(Proverbs 16.33)
All the usenet posts are entering the newsgroup from various people and
in no particular order. (The lot is cast into the lap).
Therefore God decides the outcome of the posts - if he so wishes. (but
its every decision is from the Lord).
Hopefully you will understand as it's difficult to explain.
Blessings to you. Chris
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Al wrote:
> > You are a proven liar, unable to admit it ...
> >
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > >
> > > In truth, an unmoderated usenet forum is not controlled by anyone but
> > > GOD (Proverbs 16:33).
> >
> > So Chung, this is in Proverbs? More proof of how sick you really are.
> > and now
> > rapidly becoming a laughing stock as well as a blatant liar.
> >
>
> The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
> (Proverbs 16.33)
>
> All the usenet posts are entering the newsgroup from various people and
> in no particular order. (The lot is cast into the lap).
> Therefore God decides the outcome of the posts - if he so wishes. (but
> its every decision is from the Lord).
Yes.
Another way to put it would be that seemingly randomly behaving things
such as unmoderated usenet is actually under GOD's control.
May our LORD's peace be with you, dear brother Chris whom I love.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
Don Kirkman
<1155918040.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>Al wrote:
>> You are a proven liar, unable to admit it ...
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> > In truth, an unmoderated usenet forum is not controlled by anyone but
>> > GOD (Proverbs 16:33).
>> So Chung, this is in Proverbs? More proof of how sick you really are.
>> and now
>> rapidly becoming a laughing stock as well as a blatant liar.
>The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
>(Proverbs 16.33)
>All the usenet posts are entering the newsgroup from various people and
>in no particular order. (The lot is cast into the lap).
>Therefore God decides the outcome of the posts - if he so wishes. (but
>its every decision is from the Lord).
It's not legitimate to extrapolate from a method of settling disputes
(lots > God) to a general theory of God controlling every human
activity. Otherwise you're both tampering with scripture and denying
the free will you continue to teach.
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Chris wrote in article
> <1155918040.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Al wrote:
> >> You are a proven liar, unable to admit it ...
>
> >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> >> > In truth, an unmoderated usenet forum is not controlled by anyone but
> >> > GOD (Proverbs 16:33).
>
> >> So Chung, this is in Proverbs? More proof of how sick you really are.
> >> and now
> >> rapidly becoming a laughing stock as well as a blatant liar.
>
> >The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
> >(Proverbs 16.33)
>
> >All the usenet posts are entering the newsgroup from various people and
> >in no particular order. (The lot is cast into the lap).
> >Therefore God decides the outcome of the posts - if he so wishes. (but
> >its every decision is from the Lord).
>
> It's not legitimate to extrapolate from a method of settling disputes
> (lots > God) to a general theory of God controlling every human
> activity.
Actually, everything that GOD does is legitimate. HE remains
absolutely sovereign.
> Otherwise you're both tampering with scripture and denying
> the free will you continue to teach.
Untrue.
It is very clear according to Proverbs 16:33 that nothing happens by
chance. You would limit the scope of the verse to just an archaic
method of settling disputes but GOD is timeless so that the lots would
be dice for us today.
Does this mean there is no free will as you claim ?
By no means, because if this were so, it would mean that incarcerating
someone in prison is taking away their free will. This is clearly not
the case.
The sphere of influence of our respective free wills is promised only
to the boundaries of our thoughts. The actuation of what we would
chose to do using our respective wills beyond just our thoughts is not
promised but is dependent on GOD's infinite will.
When we pray our LORD's prayer:
Our FATHER Who are in heaven
Holy is YOUR name
YOUR kingdom come
YOUR will be done
on earth as it is in heaven
give us this day our daily bread
forgive us our trespasses
as we forgive those
who trespass against us
lead us not into temptation
bur deliver us from evil.
Amen.
We acknowledge HIS infinite will with "YOUR will be done."
This means we know HE is absolutely in charge of the actuation of all
our thoughts.
We also acknowledge our own free will with "as we forgive those who
trespass against us." This means we could have chosen not to forgive
but we recognize that the trespass of others against us could not have
happened without GOD actuating it. So what we are forgiving when we
forgive others is not the actuation of the trespass but the thought
that led to the actuation. The former is from GOD's infinite will and
the latter is from our neighbor's free will. This is why we sin in
thought even if there is no actuation. Thinking about killing someone
is just as evil as carrying it out as far as GOD is concerned because
GOD knows our thoughts. This is why we are doomed without GOD's love
driving out all the evil in our hearts which is the source of all the
evil acts in this world.
May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor Don whom I love.
www.pulpitfire.org
in article <1155954791.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
There are many clear proofs that salvation is the result of God's
will, and not mans.
1) People who trust Christ are "born".
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to
become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
No one makes a decision to be born physically, and no one makes a
"free will" decision to be born spiritually.
2) People who trust Christ are born not "of the will of man".
How much plainer can it be? The Bible says that those who receive and
believe on Christ are "not" born "of the will of man". This is the
exact opposite of the idea that man is born as a result of his own
"free will".
Again,
Romans 9
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have
mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose
have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my
name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he
will he hardeneth.
3) People who trust Christ are born of the will of "God". While man
is "not" the one who "wills" to be born, he is born of the will "of
God". This is clearly taught both in John 1:13 as well as Romans 9.
Salvation is "not" of man who wills, but of God who shows mercy.
4) Salvation is based on God's choice
Romans 9
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one,
even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good
or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand,
not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
God deliberately chooses one and not another, "that the purpose of God
according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that
calleth". To claim that man is the one who decides whether or not he
gets saved, is to deny these plain statements of Scripture, and to
attempt to frustrate the purpose of God to establish his sovereignty
in the salvation of sinners. God will not share his glory with man,
and clearly and deliberately demonstrates that salvation is based on
his choice, not man's.
5) The unregenerate mind is incapable of trusting or willing to trust
Christ as Savior:
a) The unsaved are spiritually dead, mentally darkened, and morally
depraved, until such time as God makes them alive (Ephesians 2 - 5).
b) The unsaved are at enmity against God, cannot submit themselves to
the will of God, and can only contradict that which they know to be
God's will:
Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
c) It is God who works in us both to will and do of His good pleasure
(Php. 2:13). No one "wills" until God gives them a new nature, and
works in them to will to do of His pleasure. This is not the same as
God making robots do His will even though they don't want to, because
He gives them a new heart which serves Him of its own free will when
He works in them to both to "will" and to "do" of His pleasure. The
result is you have people trusting God, wanting to do His will, and
doing it. This is not the result of their "free will", but of God
working in them both to will and do of His pleasure when He saves
them.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b1957ab18d3c93f1?
It is clear that you have not yet received our LORD's salvation because
you have not chosen to place your faith in LORD Jesus Christ.
Only the brethren of Christ Jesus are able to follow HIS two
commandments on which all the laws and all the prophets hang.
It remains my hope that you would someday be able to publicly declare
that you have love for GOD and everyone else including your enemies.
May GOD help you with this, dear neighbor Randy whom I love.
Chris
Yes, I see what you mean. Thankfully God does intervene on occasions.
Usually through our prayers to Him, or for our own good.
Though we have free will by writing whatever we wish in the ngs, God
still decides whether it reaches there or not. For instance, if you
find yourself sending a post to a ng and your computer crashes, or
there's a power surge - it could be the will of our Lord (or it could
be your power company or your ISP) :-)
Chris
Chris
Because you write in old English, I don't know if I've read you
correctly (and I'm just an ordinary person with faith in Jesus Christ),
but do you mean that God knows before we are born who He will save?
Does that mean there are people out there who are praising the Lord,
believing they are saved, but really are not?
Aren't we all given a 'measure' of faith? I'm sure that's written
somewhere in the Bible.
With all respect to you, do you think you could answer in plain
English, just for us 'not too educated' to understand.
Thanks and blessings, Chris
www.pulpitfire.org
in article <1155960888....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b1957ab18d3c93f1?
About the only place, in the article above, where you disagree with
what I am saying, is:
>> b) The people who believe on Christ are not born "of the will of the
>> flesh", "nor of the will of man". How plain can the Bible state the
>> fact that people are not born spiritually "of the will of man"?
>
>Correct. We are reborn of water and the Holy Spirit and not of the
>will of man. Indeed, this rebirth was not forced upon us by the will
>of man (person who is of this world). We chose this when we chose to
>place our faith in LORD Jesus Christ. At that very instant when the
>decision is made, we are no longer of this world but of GOD so that our
>wills become also of GOD and not of man.
Here you claim the phrase about not being born of the will of man
means little more than that "rebirth was not forced upon us by the
will of man (person who is of this world)." This is not what the text
says, or not what it means. "Not of the will of man" doesn't mean not
of the will of unregenerate men, but "man", which includes ourselves.
You then go on to claim that salvation is by our own choice and
decision. This does NOT agree with what John 1:13 says. You again
have to insert ideas that are not in the text, and which clearly
contradict what the Bible says, to sustain your theology.
>It is clear that you have not yet received our LORD's salvation because
>you have not chosen to place your faith in LORD Jesus Christ.
You are the one who, in apparently thinking (contrary to what the
Bible teaches) God rewarded you with salvation for a decision *you*
made, is relying on a gospel that seeks to share glory with God, and
which is therefore not a saving gospel. Romans 9 plainly teaches
salvation is based on the sovereign choice of God, and is not of man
who wills, and John 1:13 confirms this.
>Only the brethren of Christ Jesus are able to follow HIS two
>commandments on which all the laws and all the prophets hang.
>It remains my hope that you would someday be able to publicly declare
>that you have love for GOD and everyone else including your enemies.
>
>May GOD help you with this, dear neighbor Randy whom I love.
You don't warrant a rebuttal. You constantly go about claiming nearly
everyone has a sick heart, making up doctrines that are not found in,
and which contradict the plain statements of the word of God, and then
blasphemously claiming the Holy Spirit is the one who guided you to
such conclusions.
www.pulpitfire.org
in article <1155967259.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris" <loxi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Because you write in old English, I don't know if I've read you
>correctly (and I'm just an ordinary person with faith in Jesus Christ),
>but do you mean that God knows before we are born who He will save?
Absolutely.
>Does that mean there are people out there who are praising the Lord,
>believing they are saved, but really are not?
Only if they think God saved them as a reward for a decision they
made, rather than as a choice He made to save them.
>Aren't we all given a 'measure' of faith? I'm sure that's written
>somewhere in the Bible.
Yes, all believers are given a measure of faith (Romans 12:3).
>With all respect to you, do you think you could answer in plain
>English, just for us 'not too educated' to understand.
See above.
>Thanks and blessings, Chris
=============================================
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this finished work alone for salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-3;
Eph. 2:8-10).
=============================================
• Daily devotionals
• Bible questions and answers
• Community forum
• Live chatting
• Free at www.pulpitfire.org
=============================================
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Are you able to love everyong including GOD unconditionally, dear
Randy?
www.pulpitfire.org
in article <1155987526.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Are you able to love everyong including GOD unconditionally, dear
>Randy?
Are you asking me to prove it by making a verbal claim? If so, please
read the following verse:
1Jo 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in
tongue; but in deed and in truth.
Simply saying you love someone is proof of nothing, and contradicts
the instruction in 1 John 3:18. You apparently think all you have to
do is say you love people, or say that the Holy Spirit guided you to
this or that understanding of Scripture, and that makes it so. That
is not the case.
Jeff
"Al" <a...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:ec4ku...@enews1.newsguy.com...
John 16:33 (King James Version)
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the
world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the
world.
I don't see where Chung's statement about an unmediated Usenet forum comes
from Proverbs 16:33. How about you?
I disagree with saying Chung is rapidly becoming a laughing stock. It should
be Chung is a laughing stalk. Also, you have to be able to understand
reality to be a liar. I think he is accurately representing his reality. How
sad.
Jeff
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On 19 Aug 2006 04:38:46 -0700,
> in article <1155987526.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Randy?
>
> Are you asking me to prove it by making a verbal claim?
No.
Simply answer the question truthfully for me as a personal request from
me.
GOD already knows the answer.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On 19 Aug 2006 04:38:46 -0700,
> in article <1155987526.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Randy?
>
> Are you asking me to prove it by making a verbal claim?
No.
Simply answer the question truthfully for me as a personal request from
me.
GOD already knows the answer.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
www.pulpitfire.org
in article <1155988696....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>GOD already knows the answer.
And that's all that's matters:
1 Corinthians 4
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of
you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he
that judgeth me is the Lord.
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who
both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make
manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have
praise of God.
1Jo 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in
tongue; but in deed and in truth.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy
house. (Acts 16:31)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this finished work alone for salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-3;
Eph. 2:8-10).
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Chuck Stamford
"www.pulpitfire.org" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0node294qtp8dde4d...@pulpitfire.org...
> On 18 Aug 2006 23:00:59 -0700,
> in article <1155967259.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Chris" <loxi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Because you write in old English, I don't know if I've read you
>>correctly (and I'm just an ordinary person with faith in Jesus Christ),
>>but do you mean that God knows before we are born who He will save?
>
> Absolutely.
>
>>Does that mean there are people out there who are praising the Lord,
>>believing they are saved, but really are not?
>
> Only if they think God saved them as a reward for a decision they
> made, rather than as a choice He made to save them.
Randy,
Having just read through this short thread (your responses to Andrew and
Chris), I have a question. John 1:13, which you have leaned upon here to
say that a person's free will plays no part in their salvation (or at least
that's what I think you're saying...in a debate sometimes we tend to
overstate our positions), is, obviously enough, preceded by John 1:12, which
says:
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children
of God, to those who believe in His name"
Now how are we to understand "receive" here, and "right to become", and
"belief" if the concept of "free will" has no place in this message about
being "born again"? It seems to be perfectly clear that here we are being
told that for everyone who voluntarily "receives" Jesus (makes a *decision*;
"opens" to His "knock" [Rev. 3:20]; we can hardly take this any other way,
given that verse 11 uses the same word to say that the Jews to whom Jesus
came rejected Him), God gives to them the "right" to be "born of the
Spirit", which "right" is always exercised through God's faithfulness and
power.
I understand that forming a belief is often times not something that is
under our direct control (for example, when I see a tree clearly, I don't
really have much choice about forming the belief that it's a tree I'm
seeing), but certainly *maintaining* a belief, once formed, more often is
under our direct control (using the same analogy, sometime later I may come
to doubt I *saw* a tree [perhaps someone tells me later that there are no
trees around here, but that someone has been putting up fake trees, and this
new information *undercuts* the belief I formed that it was a tree that I
saw], and the maintainance or rejection of my former belief may very well
*be* under my direct control [using the same analogy, I can then choose
whether to believe this new information or my own eyes]). And in this
context, and in conjunction with those passages of the NT which speak about
those who have been "enlightened", and have "tasted of the heavenly gift"
and been "partakers of the Holy Spirit" (for example Heb. 6:4), "those who
believe on His name" seems to be talking about those who *continue* to
believe once having formed the belief in the authority of Christ. So how is
it that we can say that the phrase "those who believe in His name"
completely excludes the concept of "free will"; of maintaining a belief once
formed over which we have at least some control? It's pretty clear, at
least to me, that Scripture teaches that no one is saved simply by coming to
belief in Jesus Christ if they do not continue in that belief to the end.
In any case, I don't see the exercise of free will having some part in our
salvation being any more an assault on the sovereignty of God than any other
faculty God gifted us with when He created us. I understand these faculties
for what they are, and their use in light of God's intention in giving them
to us. And at least some of these faculties are absolutely necessary to
*any* sentient experience of God at all! Can you know God without
knowledge? Can you come to understand God's purpose in your life without
reasoning and judgment? Can you read Scripture without perception? So why
should free will be such a big no-no in playing it's proper part in our
eternal life with God? These are all gifts of God that we should be ever
thankful to Him for, and use them for His glory. There is no attempt, at
least not by me, to steal glory from God in believing that God makes use of
the faculty of free will He gifted us with in causing us to become "born
again". It is *God*, not our free will, that causes that rebirth into His
kingdom. But it is also God's choice as to how He would actualize that
rebirth; and, at least to me, it seems fairly clear that God has chosen to
do that making use of the faculty of free will that He has given us for just
that reason.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
www.pulpitfire.org
in article <yxFFg.409$WK4.219@fed1read06>,
"Chuck Stamford" <shell__...@cox.net> wrote:
>Randy,
>
>Having just read through this short thread (your responses to Andrew and
>Chris), I have a question. John 1:13, which you have leaned upon here to
>say that a person's free will plays no part in their salvation (or at least
>that's what I think you're saying...in a debate sometimes we tend to
>overstate our positions), is, obviously enough, preceded by John 1:12, which
>says:
>
>"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children
>of God, to those who believe in His name"
>
>Now how are we to understand "receive" here, and "right to become", and
>"belief" if the concept of "free will" has no place in this message about
>being "born again"?
Verse 12 is the result of verse 13, and not vice-versa. You've got
the fruit before the tree.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this finished work alone for salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-3;
Eph. 2:8-10).
• Daily devotionals
::: veralein :::
Chuck Stamford <shell__...@cox.net> typed:
Welcome back, Chuck! :-)
His Peace and Grace,
::: vera :::
Don Kirkman
>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Chris wrote in article
>> <1155918040.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>> >Al wrote:
>> >> You are a proven liar, unable to admit it ...
>> >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> >> > In truth, an unmoderated usenet forum is not controlled by anyone but
>> >> > GOD (Proverbs 16:33).
>> >> So Chung, this is in Proverbs? More proof of how sick you really are.
>> >> and now
>> >> rapidly becoming a laughing stock as well as a blatant liar.
>> >The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
>> >(Proverbs 16.33)
>> >All the usenet posts are entering the newsgroup from various people and
>> >in no particular order. (The lot is cast into the lap).
>> >Therefore God decides the outcome of the posts - if he so wishes. (but
>> >its every decision is from the Lord).
>> It's not legitimate to extrapolate from a method of settling disputes
>> (lots > God) to a general theory of God controlling every human
>> activity. Otherwise you're both tampering with scripture and denying
>> the free will you continue to teach.
>Yes, I see what you mean. Thankfully God does intervene on occasions.
>Usually through our prayers to Him, or for our own good.
Sorry, Chris, my comment was really in response to Andrew's common
perversion of Proverbs 16:33; I should have edited better to make that
clear. The Proverbs passage is about settling disputes by casting lots,
not about how God guides all of a man's life. Another of Andrew's
misleading Biblical citations.
--
Don Kirkman
Don Kirkman
article <1155954791.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Chris wrote in article
>> <1155918040.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>> >Al wrote:
>> >> You are a proven liar, unable to admit it ...
>> >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> >> > In truth, an unmoderated usenet forum is not controlled by anyone but
>> >> > GOD (Proverbs 16:33).
>> >> So Chung, this is in Proverbs? More proof of how sick you really are.
>> >> and now
>> >> rapidly becoming a laughing stock as well as a blatant liar.
>> >The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
>> >(Proverbs 16.33)
>> It's not legitimate to extrapolate from a method of settling disputes
>> (lots > God) to a general theory of God controlling every human
>> activity.
>Actually, everything that GOD does is legitimate. HE remains
>absolutely sovereign.
But I'm talking about the illegitimate interpretation you gave, not
about something God did.
>> Otherwise you're both tampering with scripture and denying
>> the free will you continue to teach.
>Untrue.
Absolutely true.
>It is very clear according to Proverbs 16:33 that nothing happens by
>chance. You would limit the scope of the verse to just an archaic
>method of settling disputes but GOD is timeless so that the lots would
>be dice for us today.
I limit the scope of the verse because that is the content and the
context. To go beyond it is a perversion of the clear meaning of the
proverb.
Settling a dispute with a die or with dice instead of some other type of
lot (a lot is simply an object used as a counter or marker) is
irrelevant--it is still a dispute resolution issue, nothing more.
>Does this mean there is no free will as you claim ?
>By no means, because if this were so, it would mean that incarcerating
>someone in prison is taking away their free will. This is clearly not
>the case.
>The sphere of influence of our respective free wills is promised only
>to the boundaries of our thoughts. The actuation of what we would
>chose to do using our respective wills beyond just our thoughts is not
>promised but is dependent on GOD's infinite will.
Babble. The issue is whether, with a God who *controls* everything a
man can still have free will to act as he wishes.
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
> article <1155954791.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Don Kirkman wrote:
> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Chris wrote in article
> >> <1155918040.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >Al wrote:
> >> >> You are a proven liar, unable to admit it ...
>
> >> >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> >> >> > In truth, an unmoderated usenet forum is not controlled by anyone but
> >> >> > GOD (Proverbs 16:33).
>
> >> >> So Chung, this is in Proverbs? More proof of how sick you really are.
> >> >> and now
> >> >> rapidly becoming a laughing stock as well as a blatant liar.
>
> >> >The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
> >> >(Proverbs 16.33)
>
> >> It's not legitimate to extrapolate from a method of settling disputes
> >> (lots > God) to a general theory of God controlling every human
> >> activity.
>
> >Actually, everything that GOD does is legitimate. HE remains
> >absolutely sovereign.
>
> But I'm talking about the illegitimate interpretation you gave, not
> about something God did.
The extrapolation is from GOD the Holy Spirit.
Again, everything that GOD does is legitimate.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On 19 Aug 2006 04:58:16 -0700,
> in article <1155988696....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >GOD already knows the answer.
>
> And that's all that's matters:
>
> 1 Corinthians 4
> 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of
> you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
> 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he
> that judgeth me is the Lord.
> 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who
> both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make
> manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have
> praise of God.
>
> 1Jo 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in
> tongue; but in deed and in truth.
Out of curiosity, why are you not willing to answer the following
simple yes/no question:
"Are you able to love everyone including your enemies unconditionally?"
May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor Randy whom I love.
Chuck Stamford
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 07:48:55 -0700,
> in article <yxFFg.409$WK4.219@fed1read06>,
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell__...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Randy,
>>
>>Having just read through this short thread (your responses to Andrew and
>>Chris), I have a question. John 1:13, which you have leaned upon here to
>>say that a person's free will plays no part in their salvation (or at
>>least
>>that's what I think you're saying...in a debate sometimes we tend to
>>overstate our positions), is, obviously enough, preceded by John 1:12,
>>which
>>says:
>>
>>"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children
>>of God, to those who believe in His name"
>>
>>Now how are we to understand "receive" here, and "right to become", and
>>"belief" if the concept of "free will" has no place in this message about
>>being "born again"?
>
> Verse 12 is the result of verse 13, and not vice-versa. You've got
> the fruit before the tree.
How so? How is it possible that one receive the "right" to do something, or
to have something done to them, *after* they've already done it, or had it
done to them? That doesn't make any sense at all to me. Are we born of God
illegitimately, only to become legitimate children later, when we receive
our "right to become" children of God? And why would John speak of the
fruit before speaking of the tree, especially when what you're calling
"fruit" here (the opportunity to "receive" Jesus Christ) John also speaks of
as having been given to the Jews *first*! Are the Jews who rejected Jesus
Christ, who *didn't* receive Him, but had this "fruit" you speak of (this
decision to make regarding Jesus) also "born again"???
But that's not the main problem anyway as I see it. Any relationship with
God that results in eternal life will be a relationship of love, the kind of
love that God *is*, between God and the one who has it. To strip such a
relationship of it's basic uncoerced response aspect (its giving of oneself
freely and unreservedly to the other) is to destroy it altogether. Not even
God can force someone to selflessly and consciously love Him.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
" ::: veralein :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:4kpbsqF...@individual.net...
>
> Welcome back, Chuck! :-)
>
> His Peace and Grace,
>
> ::: vera :::
Thanks, Vera. A short, but refreshing break.
God bless
Chuck
Don Kirkman
>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
>> article <1155954791.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>> >Don Kirkman wrote:
>> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Chris wrote in article
>> >> <1155918040.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>> >> >Al wrote:
>> >> >> You are a proven liar, unable to admit it ...
>> >> >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> >> >> > In truth, an unmoderated usenet forum is not controlled by anyone but
>> >> >> > GOD (Proverbs 16:33).
>> >> >> So Chung, this is in Proverbs? More proof of how sick you really are.
>> >> >> and now
>> >> >> rapidly becoming a laughing stock as well as a blatant liar.
>> >> >The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
>> >> >(Proverbs 16.33)
>> >> It's not legitimate to extrapolate from a method of settling disputes
>> >> (lots > God) to a general theory of God controlling every human
>> >> activity.
>> >Actually, everything that GOD does is legitimate. HE remains
>> >absolutely sovereign.
>> But I'm talking about the illegitimate interpretation you gave, not
>> about something God did.
>The extrapolation is from GOD the Holy Spirit.
We only have YOUR word for that, and we all know how much your word can
be trusted.
>Again, everything that GOD does is legitimate.
But there is no proof that God has been involved in any of this
extra-Biblical tripe.
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
> >Don Kirkman wrote:
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >> >Don Kirkman wrote:
> >> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Chris wrote in article
> >> >> <1155918040.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> >Al wrote:
> >> >> >> You are a proven liar, unable to admit it ...
>
> >> >> >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > In truth, an unmoderated usenet forum is not controlled by anyone but
> >> >> >> > GOD (Proverbs 16:33).
>
> >> >> >> So Chung, this is in Proverbs? More proof of how sick you really are.
> >> >> >> and now
> >> >> >> rapidly becoming a laughing stock as well as a blatant liar.
>
> >> >> >The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
> >> >> >(Proverbs 16.33)
>
> >> >> It's not legitimate to extrapolate from a method of settling disputes
> >> >> (lots > God) to a general theory of God controlling every human
> >> >> activity.
>
> >> >Actually, everything that GOD does is legitimate. HE remains
> >> >absolutely sovereign.
>
> >> But I'm talking about the illegitimate interpretation you gave, not
> >> about something God did.
>
> >The extrapolation is from GOD the Holy Spirit.
>
> We only have YOUR word for that, and we all know how much your word can
> be trusted.
It is your choice to believe what you want to believe.
It is my choice to continue to write truthfully.
No one has proven that this has not been my choice.
Again, GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to convince.
> >Again, everything that GOD does is legitimate.
>
> But there is no proof that God has been involved in any of this
> extra-Biblical tripe.
Actually, there has been evidence but you refuse to believe what you
have seen and so there is no proof.
For the faithless, there can never be proof nor can there ever be GOD's
unconditional love which gives eternal life.
Again, it remains your choice to believe what you want to believe.
Al
> Out of curiosity, why are you not willing to answer the following
> simple yes/no question:
>
As if Chung ever does...
Al
>
> It is my choice to continue to write truthfully.
>
Bull shit, Chung, here it is AGAIN ... the big lie:
>> > Andrew B. Chung, Kook, wrote:
>>> > > Did not attempt exorcism.
> Wanna bet, Chung? Here's EXACTLY what you said:
> "In the infinitely powerful and holy name of LORD Jesus Christ, I
> command you, demon, to come out and leave Philip before our LORD
> personally destroys you. "
> Chung caught in a boldfaced lie!
::: veralein :::
Chuck Stamford <shell__...@cox.net> typed:
A break that you had really earned, Chuck.
I adore your patience, Brother.
> God bless
>
> Chuck
God bless you, too.
::: vera :::
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Would concur with what you have written.
> God bless
>
> Chuck Stamford
Et tu.
May GOD's love continue to heal all of our hearts, dear brother Chuck
Chuck Stamford
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:1156076421.0...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
I don't understand what it is that would prompt the question, Andrew. Why
would you suspect that I *don't* concur with what I have written? And if
you *do* suspect that I don't (which would obviously entail a deeply rooted
dishonesty in me), then how is asking me about it going to accomplish
anything?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Was not a question but another way of saying "Amen!"
Sorry about the misunderstanding. Please forgive all my iniquities.
May GOD continue to bless you and yours today and everyday, dear
Chuck Stamford
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:1156098292.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No need. Completely my fault. I don't know why, but when I read what you
wrote the first time I must have "spaced", because I read a "you" between
"would" and "concur" that obviously isn't there! So please accept my
apology for my misunderstanding.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
Nechesh
www.pulpitfire.org wrote:
> There are many clear proofs that salvation is the result of God's
> will, and not mans.
There are no such proofs. This is an unsubstantiated lie.
There is only your faith.
Faith without foundation, and thus without certainty.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
You are forgiven as far as I am concerned.
> I don't know why, but when I read what you
> wrote the first time I must have "spaced", because I read a "you" between
> "would" and "concur" that obviously isn't there!
HE used you to test my love for you.
> So please accept my apology for my misunderstanding.
Again, you are forgiven as far as I am concerned.
> God bless
>
> Chuck Stamford
Many thanks and praises to GOD for your kind heart.
May GOD continue to use you in HIS mighty way, dear brother Chuck whom
I love unconditionally.