双方都认为受苦代价不宜。
但吃过苦的能更分辨得出重要的何不重要的，有效或无效的，证明了自己在受苦中炼成金；
没吃过苦的，只能认出受过苦的结果，然后以其认识来证明自己对受苦的价值观的看重，可惜自己却无法再行事上有任何长进的效率。结果，在只有两条出路中，通常不选自己努力自我改进的路，只选不准被别人批评的路。。。可怜哪！
Trying to write a Gospel-centric paper for a secular Bible (Tanach) class under the Jewish Department as a requirement to my graduation.
The Title of my paper: The Idea of Mashiach in the Bible
Gospel-centric because of my duty to God. Secular because I want to graduate and get an A.
If I were to find a teaching job, my cover letter will read something as short as this:
Today in colleges, many professors teach students in class how to do 1+1, and make congruence modulo, Jacobian Matrix, etc. as reading/homework assignments.
I'm going to change that.
If one's qualification is merely that of a librarian, one should not be a pastor nor a preacher (maybe not even a Christian).
A preacher's duty involves having read a great deal of books, but absolutely not limited to the ability to recommend books to others. In fact, it is rarely a good idea to recommend books to those who never ask for them in the first place.
Therefore, one must be articulate enough to communicate an idea, not merely giving citations.
What principle of the Bible am I applying here? Perhaps Matthew 25:14-30, the Parable of 10 talents.
On views of the sacramental elements of the Eucharist:
Roman Catholics (transubstantiation): the transformation of the elements into the miraculous presence of the body of Christ and also creating the presence of Christ's sacrifice making forgiveness possible.
Greek Orthodox (divine Liturgy): the mysterious presence of the body of Christ.
Lutherans (sacramental union): the union of the elements with real already existing body of Christ. It is not consubstantiation which presents the body in a physical space.
Calvin (my position): the spiritual effect of the believe in the presence of the truth of the things signified. It is not Bullinger's receptionism which makes the miracle only true for the faithful.
Zwingli (memorialism - popular position): A reminder and remembrance in a symbolic sense.
This corresponds to a course I am taking in college.
Though the class is named "The Bible as Literature", this is actually a course about modern scholarship in the Tanakh.
The idea of modern scholarship is this: The religious, the God-fearing ones are not as scientifically informed or as academically educated to KNOW that what they believe in the Bible is false.
A "good" way to end a debate: Claim the others are not academically qualified to make a case.
An easy response/defense is this: The academics are trapped in their own conviction so much that they believe their belief is anything infallible but a mere belief. Not to mention that this academic conviction is rather un-academic nor is it honest science.
The professor explained to me that she's considered an Epikoros in the synagogue, similar to heretic/apostate in Christianity but not as discriminated in the synagogues as those in churches.
A good description of this topic can be found here. The article is so well written that I am going to paste it in the comment in case of broken link.
An argument is going nowhere when the other side is ignoring and talking about what you already know or would agree.
Freezing...possibly due to wrong url/ip
Solution: open the Windows\System 32\Drivers\Etc\Host file with Notepad and add this at the bottom (on a new line) 92.240.234.122 api.opensubtitles.org
From the famous Synod of Dort (1618-1619):
I once heard Dr. Tong mentioned of its refusal to excommunicate the Arminians as heretics.
I believe the First Head Article 16 of the canons is relevant to it. That we ought to be gracious towards these earnest brethren who are lack of faith (Tong: lower IQ).
This is from the Ligonier lesson on Understanding Free Will by R.C. Sproul (Lesson 5: Sovereign Grace).
From Augustinians: The ability to do what we want.
Jonathan Edwards on free will definition: Free will is that which our minds choose according to our strongest inclination/desire at the moment.
Edwards argued against pagan philosophers that stated that true free will must be indifference. Such as the Alice (in Wonderland) asking Cheshire cat on which path to take, but when she couldn't tell the cat where she wants to go, the cat replied that it really doesn't matter which path to take in that case. Edwards said that this is illogical because: 1. it would not have been a moral choice (which requires reason to choose), 2. it would be impossible to choose at all! - since it has no cause - undermines the law of causality. Thus, the idea of indifference choice => nonsensical concept.
Edwards further made the distinction between: natural & moral ability (similar to Augustine's freewill & liberty). We have natural ability, but lack the moral ability to choose the things of God.
The problem is we always do what we want, and what we want, without grace, is always evil. This is the free will of our fallen state. We ALWAYS (MUST) choose and do according to our strongest desire. We not only can choose, but we MUST choose what we want. This is the definition of free will, not the opposite of it.
Though we still have free will, we have lost, according to Augustine, the Liberty (choosing God, do what God wants, moral ability), since the Fall. Hence our will is corrupted.
