Tom gets 70 percent of Ohio. Jerry gets 30 percent of Ohio. The Ohio delegates like Fred the most. He only received .1 percent. The delegates support Fred and say the heck with these people and their vote because we know better because Tom is like hurler and Jerry is Stalin.
The only thing unbound is the people will see their vote does not count for anything as the delegates do what they want by choosing an individual of their own liking and not the will of the people. Who do they truly represent? Take Cruz and Trump out of the equation and look at what's going on here.
@geff Which means the one with the most votes is not represented? And that's okay just as long as we like him? I thought the one with the most votes would logically be the choice of the people. Doesn't seem to be the case does it.
This is a very revealing process that proves your vote does not mean what you think it does. Seems Trump is finding out too. You would think delegates represent the desire of the voters of the state by the quantity of votes cast. Instead you just need a career politician working the system
TMC wrote: @ Question By even the strictest historical interpretation Cruz is qualified. Something people forget when this comes up is that if Cruz is not a "Natural Born" citizen- then he's not a citizen at all. He's never gone through any naturalization process. And if he's not a citizen he would not have been able to drive, vote, or be a Senator.
It is possible to be a citizen but not a natural born citizen. Those naturally born here and on American soil AKA an embassy in another country are the natural born ones and those who are not can apply for citizenship. Look at Arnold S. He was Gov. of California but was not qualified for POTUS per the prereqs...but he drives and votes.
I am unsure of any process he has or has not gone through. I just happen to hear on an interview on the radio that his mother was a registered voter in Canada, living in Canada when Ted was born. If she was a registered voter in Canada at the time of Ted's birth she could not be a citizen of the US at that time??? or maybe she was duel???
What opinion some guys at Harvard have are of no worth as they can "interpret" what they want it to say. Words have meaning and they are pretty straight forward in the constitution. Obama beat the system.
Would Cruz be eligible for potus under the requirements of the constitution? I heard on a radio interview His mother was a registered voter in Canada, living in Canada, when Cruz was born in Canada. How does that qualify him to be a Natural born citizen?
Mike wrote: Agreed, as long as sin is defined biblically, and not applied to that which is not sin, but rather that which some may take to be offense, yet others not.
Is sin defined quote, "Biblically" by the other theological position really sin?
Is the Romish-Arminian definition of sin a fully Biblical definition?
Is the position taken, conscience and actions of the reprobate all sin?
Total Depravity = "The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not--indeed he cannot--choose good over evil in the spiritual realm"
Thus the discernment of sin is not within the capacity or ability of the reprobate.
Sin of itself is a power and influence over the mortal - True or false?
Is it sin in the mortal which prevents the sinner from accessing salvation? Or is it God's choice alone?
Lurker wrote: I say again, Adam's body before and after transgression was the same.
Didnât Adamâs body change after the transgression in that his body started to die physically and was prone to sickness and disease, fatigue, weakness etc?
(Gen 2:17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gillâs commentary: âŚdeath at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses;
John UK wrote: quote Christian theology teaches the doctrine of prevenient grace, which briefly stated means this, that before a man can seek God, God must first have sought the man. Before a sinful man can think a right thought of God, there must have been a work of enlightenment done within him; ...... unquote
Why John. I see you like Mr Tozer!
But John. Did you know he was an Arminian? Like Finney and Graham.
"Evangelical Baptist theologian Millard Erickson says, "It is here that many Arminians, recognizing human inability as taught in the Scripture, introduce the concept of prevenient grace, which is believed to have a universal effect nullifying the noetic results of sin, thus making belief possible. The problem is that there is no clear and adequate basis in Scripture for this concept of universal enablement."...Calvinist Thomas Schreiner likewise says that, "Prevenient grace is attractive because it solves so many problems, but it should be rejected because it cannot be exegetically vindicated." (Monergism)
Cotton Mather wrote: MK 9:38-40 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.
CM I assume from your post of these verses you are suggesting that "anyone" who uses the name of Jesus in some religious context should be allowed to continue without objection or rebuke?
If that was your intent may I ask if you feel the same way about Jehovah's Witnesses/RCC (who are also committed Arminians)?
Frank wrote: I truly donât understand the semantics of this argument, but I am trying. God calls (elected) each of His children from before the foundation of the world. Those He calls will in every instance come to Him; those who werenât called âcanâtâ come.
If you look closely at the posts of John UK and Michael you will observe that they keep dropping into the free will ideology of the Arminians.
EG; By Michael:- "Question: Are the elect .... those who are by God predestinated .... are they winnable to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? And does God will to use us in the winning?"
Can you spot the mistake Frank? Michael appears to suggest that God elects people who don't have faith??? until something happens on earth.
Michael and John then post that human effort - soul winners??? - then apply their debating skills to convince the "elect?" unto salvation. Where does God, Christ and the Holy Spirit come into their proposed scheme?
John UK suggests quote; "see just how much work goes into saving souls" - Who needs God in this kind of philosophy? "Hard working" mortals can do the job just as well apparently???
"Salvation by works" once only a Roman heresy now serves the Baptist churches???
John UK wrote: I tell you what, it would better for you to get some books on church history, including the Acts of the Apostles, and see just how much work goes into saving souls. Goosebump theology never did work.
Salvation by works is Roman Catholic fiction John. Are you at last confirming to all and sundry that you are a committed Arminian? Have you booked your pew beside John Yurich yet?