The lesson I have to teach is this: Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth.
The second comment would be that the three remaining points are not logical extensionsof article 7(1). If article 7(1) had provided a tool by which the CISG is interpreted, such atool would need to be a general principle. A provision is what it says, a singular pointwithin a legislation. It is only repeated if another provision repeats the same message. Inorder for a concept to apply to all provisions and articles, it has to be a principle. If it is aprinciple it not only applies to the interpretation of all articles but it also indirectly willaffect the conduct of parties. It can therefore be suggested that there are really only twoapproaches to an understanding of the role of good faith. Firstly, it is a principle to beused to interpret the Convention as a whole, which is a principle expressed as a state ofmind. Some articles specifically refer to the general principle of good faith and thereforegood faith is linked directly to specific situations and for that reason, the second approachis that good faith must be viewed as a principle with specific situations in mind.
With all due respect, you claim that the article argues for faith alone, yet the next paragraph you argue that we are judged based on our works, too. That is what confuses me. If anything was baed on my works, then I would go to hell and there wouls be no purpose of atonement. Atonement from what?? my . . . good deeds? The cross is those are sinners, not saints, as if there were saints. I am still not convinced of works based salvation because when i read scripture, I doesnt say that. Instead it says that salvation was done on the cross. Jesus paid for actual sins on the cross, that is why he said it was “finished.” If i could crontribute to the works done on the cross, that would be blasphemy and prideful to think that I could somehow take part in my salvation beofre a holy God. The root of the issue is the desire to want to take part in one’s salvation. Thank God that Jesus took my sin and gave me his righteousness (this defeats your position about revelation). With all due respect . . . :) Thank you for allowing this conversation to be civilized guys! with all sincerity. Let us all be humble to recognize that we might be wrong. I will try my best to live by that.
Rom. 8 says that the flesh is hostile to God. How do you reconcile that with faith and good works? In my humble opinion i believe that works are result of the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said to Nicodemus that he must be born again, that flesh is born of flesh and spirit is born of spirit. ezekiel say that the Lord took out the Israelites heart of stone. and gave them a heart of flesh. I know that i am sinful and cannot enter the kingdom of God on my merit. Rom 3 says that no is righteous, nor can we do good. v. 20 says that no one will declared righteous through the law, rather the reason for the law is so we are conscious of our sin. Therefor i have no reason to boast. Paul claims that if anyone has the merit for boasting, he did! much less me! And then he continues by saying in ch. 6 that we should not keep on sinning. Why? because we have died to sin and are resurrected in Jesus’ resurrection into a new life. The life is on the spirit. We can only please God in the spirit, yet good works are not requires.. I dont know if this makes sense to you. I am 17 yrs. old and i am just following what scripture says. in response to the passage cited from revelation is that righteousness ( which is the state of being perfect or good right? ) is accredited to you by faith as it was for abraham who had faith in the promised messiah.
I am having a lot of trouble with this. The thing is both sides are quoting scripture that is actually in the Bible. Neither are wrong. The Bible is saying two different things. Jesus is the way but I don’t know if we are just asking the wrong questions about Jesus. The details are not clear the Bible is saying both things. To quote only what supports your point of view is not wise. If we wind up doing good works by God’s grace through faith is that not covering our bases?
Returning specifically to UNIDROIT, if it is accepted that theseprinciples provide an additional source for general principles ofthe CISG, the question remains as to what consequence this hasregarding the position of good faith.
For example, due to the influence of equitable doctrines such as unconscionability,Australian common law is now better prepared to accept andrecognise an obligation of good faith upon parties.
The foundation ofthis disagreement is located in the disparate approaches to goodfaith espoused by the common law and civil law representativesrespectively, during the Conventions which formulated the finaltext of the CISG.
But the original Hebrew word has more meanings than that. can mean the planet, the land and its inhabitants, ground, soil, country, or territory (Zodhiates, page 1600-1601). When the late Menachem Begin and other Zionists speak of , or Greater Israel, they are referring to Israel's pre-1967 boundaries plus Jerusalem and the West Bank of the Jordan River. They are not laying claim to the Himalayas. If we understand to mean the region of the Middle East, then the story of Noah's flood does not have to cover Mt. Everest at 29,028 feet.Let the Earth Bring Forth.
The phrase "let the earth bring forth..." occurs three times in Genesis 1 (verses 11, 20 with water, 24). It does not refer to simple growth from nutrients, because this chapter is about creation. The literal meaning of this phrase matches theistic evolution better than any other creation theory! It's almost a definition of theistic evolution, which is why I put it at the top of this essay. God commanded the earth to produce animals, and the planet did so according to His command.These verses contradict the idea of direct creation of non-human life forms. Carnivores
There are several verses in Genesis that are taken to mean that animals were vegetarian until the Flood. Genesis 1:30 states: "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." After the Flood, God states in Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."I like the idea expressed in Genesis 1:30 of God's providence for all creatures. I also like the idea of the Peaceable Kingdom, where the lion lies down with the lamb and there is no violence. We don't have a clear indication of when the carnivorous animals switched to eating meat, because Genesis 9:3 refers only to mankind. Job 39:27-30 could indicate that eagles were created as carnivorous animals, but it's not clear enough by itself. I have looked at the sharp teeth of a Tyrannosaurus rex, and they don't look like something created by an to chew vegetation. Since I understand the references to death in Romans 5:12 to mean spiritual death, the presence of carnivorous animals does not pose a theological problem. This issue is not essential for salvation. I simply don't know how Genesis 1:30 fits in with what I can observe about animals. When taken with verse 29, the two verses could be merely a description of who gets to eat what kind of vegetation (man - seeds and fruit, animals and birds - grasses and plants). I do know that verse 30 occurs in a section that describes God's providence for all creatures, and that is the faith message I can take from it.With regard to pre-history and evolution, we do not know how long satan has been allowed some measure of influence and interference in the world. The Garden of Eden sounds somewhat like a sanctuary set up by God to guard Adam and Eve against the outside world. Was there trouble and danger out there even before the Fall of Mankind?In any case, the creation account in Genesis 1-2 is incomplete. Astronomy shows us this in a spectacular fashion. I think that the biological account in Genesis is also incomplete. Who can completely describe the mighty work of creation in just 2 chapters? Not Moses, nor any other possible human author of Genesis. God Almighty rested for the only time recorded in the Bible! I think there is a lot more that happened historically than just those relatively few words in Genesis 1-2. I think a few sentences cover millions of historical years, such as in Genesis 2:7: "The time came when the Lord God formed a man's body from the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life. And man became a living person."Is the Bible incomplete? Yes, John says so at the end of his Gospel, in 20:30-31: "There were many other signs that Jesus worked and the disciples saw, but they are not recorded in this book. These are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this you may have life through his name." John repeats the "incomplete" assertion in 21:25: "There were many other things that Jesus did; if all were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not hold all the books that would have to be written."What we have is sufficient for Faith. The details left out are interesting, but they are not needed for Faith and Salvation. So we need not worry about the Bible being incomplete. We have enough testimony, both for our own faith and to witness to the world. I don't usually grind through the beginning of Genesis verse by verse, trying to match each one individually with a scientific or historical finding. I think that that approach obscures the greater faith message of the Author.
AJ: I wrote a piece on the Catholic doctrine of Grace here: . The last two paragraphs were written with some of your questions in mind. They cover material related to “faith and good works” discussion. Please let me know if these answer your questions on that subject matter. I’d also like to answer your Church/Papacy questions, but I think we should perhaps proceed in an orderly fashion.