Question For The Christians

[Snakefoot]

Could you please point me in the direction of a clear, accepted demarcation between that which is science and that which is non-science >> because in my studies, seems I found out that this is still up for debate amongst the people really in the know.

If you can repeatably touch, taste, smell, hear, measure, detect, or influence it--repeatably and on demand--it is science. It requires no faith, belief in an invisibly sky-daddy, reliance on millennia-old fables written by superstitious goat herders, or self-imposed blinders to reason and logic.

 

Of course, it is arguable that religion fits, in that certain results are predictable and repeatable when practitioners are confronted with facts and logic.

 

ETA: "science" means "knowledge"

[rayskidude]

 

So you want us to believe three things.

(1) god chooses ultimately who gets saved.

(2) god holds man responsible for whether they get saved or not (despite already having chosen himself who will be saved and who won't)

(3) it is man's responsibility to be saved or not, even though they have no power over it, since god has already decided who will be saved and who won't.

 

Your explanation is meaningless. Don't you realise that god choosing who is saved, and man choosing who is saved, are two mutually exclusive things. You only get saved if god chooses to save you. You can't override god. So if god wants you to burn, but you want to be saved, you're fucked. He's already decided what he wants to do with you.

 

Which is it? Because saying that it's our responsibility to override god's decision is a cop out, and ignores the fact that god has chosen who will be saved or not. What we decide is worthless. It's up to god.

 

Prove me wrong. You just believe whatever is convenient at the time. First god saves us, then we save us and we have to ignore the fact that god chooses who is saved. What is it? It's not enough to just produce scripture that argues either position. You have to show us which is the RIGHT position, because these two ideas are mutually exclusive. You can't have one and the other at the same time. One abrogates the other.

 

What I am saying is this, "Eureka! You've found it" - yes, these are mutually exclusive concepts >> for the finite, mortal mind. These truths compose an antinomy, two seemingly mutually exclusive conclusions that are both true. JI Packer makes this point in his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. God is sovereign in salvation, and man is responsible to repent and believe in response to the truth about Jesus the Messiah. Both these are true.

 

Can I fully understand how both can be true? No. Does that mean that both cannot be true? No. God with His infinite, divine mind has no problem creating a universe in which both these concepts are true - and that's all that matters. This is the God of the Bible. What He requires of me is the humility to acknowledge my nature as finite and flawed - even sinful; and that I recognize that He is holy, just and gracious >> and that His offer of salvation extends from His mercy & love. Should I refuse God because I cannot fully comprehend all that He has created?

 

How can I even think that I am able to fully understand God and His purposes? That would be sheer arrogance.

 

But I am to respond to what I can understand and observe and experience - my inherent sin, and God accomplishing all that is needed for salvation in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Messiah.

 

But as an example of seeming contradiction - light, is it a wave or a particle? Because for many years, Man knew that physical phenomena were either one or the other. EM radiations are waves, matter consists of particles.

 

Since light is part of the EM spectrum, and we could prove that light acted as a wave, we knew light was a wave. Then de Broglie proved that light was indeed also a particle. So now we understand that light is both - a wave and a particle. Do we fully understand this true phenomenon of science? No. Do we know it to be true? Yes.

 

So we can't reject the truth simply because it doesn't fit with what we now hold to be mutually exclusive.

[centauri]

from centauri

 

God predestines some people to believe. This is done according to his will, not their will. They don’t choose, God chooses for them in advance.

Eph 1:4-5,11

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

 

Note that God also works out other things according to his will. It has nothing to do with the will of others.

 

Rom 9:16-18(NLT)

So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.

For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, “I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth.”

So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.

 

God decides, not the individual.

The pot has no say in the matter of how God the potter molds him.

 

PLz allow me to chime in; 'cuz I would term your argument to some degree as hyper-Calvinist. Fact is that God does indeed elect some to salvation before the foundation of the world; and yet when we read all of Scripture, we see that man is held responsible for his unbelief (and all his other sins, as well).

Which doesn’t change the fact that God predestines some people to believe.

Their path was already determined regardless of how much unbelief others might have.

 

...Peter squarely places the responsibility on them to assess their true guilt and then to receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit - and he tells them "Save yourselves..."

This doesn’t change anything either.

Some people are predestined to believe regardless of what Peter requires them to do.

There is no need for them to do anything.

God's will and purpose already took care of that.

 

So which is it - God's sovereign election, or man's response to the Gospel? Well, it's both. How can that be? Well, that's a true mystery of the Christian faith.

When something can’t be rationally reconciled, placing it under the category of a “mystery” keeps people from questioning the incoherent nature of the theology.

 

...In some ways no different than our belief that Jesus the Messiah is fully God and fully Man, the God-Man.

...Not to mention the Tri-une nature of God.

Well, that’s the nature of fantasy, you can make up anything that appeals to your senses and then claim it’s a reality.

In pixie land I’ve heard there’s a magical shirt that’s made of 100% wool and 100% cotton.

 

Jesus the Messiah, the Theanthropic Person; One God existing as three Persons? Bible as divine and human? Impossible? Not for God.

 

But for Man, definitely mysteries beyond our ability to fully comprehend.

But not beyond your comprehension!

You think you understand it so well that you’re here pronouncing your theological fantasies as facts.

 

centauri:

His character is that of a stage manager that uses props to enhance the theater and drama of a script.

Acts 4:27-28(NLT)

“In fact, this has happened here in this very city! For Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate the governor, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were all united against Jesus, your holy servant, whom you anointed.

But everything they did was determined beforehand according to your [God’s] will.

 

 

RSD:

Now here you just denigrate God - He is not the stage manager. God is the author, originator, source, of all that happens. And the universe is playing out His divine script in accordance with His wishes, and all to the praise of His glory.

It’s not denigrating to call the Bible deity a stage manager.

It’s an appropriate description.

According to you it’s not proper to point out the obvious when it comes to describing a being that creates things as part of a continual effort to glorify himself.

 

centauri:

God not only knows, he determines it, fixes it in place, and is responsible for it.

 

Eph 1:4,11

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

 

Some people are predestined to believe, and this is done according to God’s will and purpose. Predestine not only means to know something in advance, predestine means to determine something in advance.

 

RSD:

Yes, absolutely. And yet - Jesus calls people to come to Him, and castigates them for their refusal to receive God's grace & mercy, which alone can save them. Why is that? Because both God's electing grace and man's repentance and faith lead to salvation.

This is because Christianity cannot agree on the nature of salvation, and so it tries to create a hybrid system where multiple systems are simultaneously in place.

If you’re elected and predestined by God, according to his will, then you've been saved.

The decision was already made by God.

If you aren’t predestined by God, then you have to perform works to gain his favor.

I don’t recall Jesus writing Romans 8, 9, or Eph 1:4,5 11.

That was Paul’s handiwork and theology.

 

centauri:

Ezekiel told the people that salvation was based on repenting and keeping the law. Each person could save themselves by taking proper affirmative action. That’s classic salvation by works.

Jesus' death paid the penalty that we were supposed to pay which is death, He did not have to do that for us.

 

I cannot believe that you're still beating that old "Ezekiel teaches salvation by works" drum. I have on more than one occasion shown you that when you take into account the entire context of the Book of Ezekiel, he indeed does not teach a salvation by works theology. Please go back and review those previous posts.

I cannot believe that you are still beating that old “Ezekiel didn’t really mean what he said” drum.

I have on more than one occasion shown you that Ezekiel does teach salvation by works.

It’s right there in Ezek 18 and it has nothing to do with believing in Jesus.

It calls for people to repent and keep the law in order to redeem themselves.

Please go back and read those previous posts.

 

centauri:

The death of Jesus paid for nothing because it wasn’t a valid sin sacrifice in the first place.

 

Really? And so how hoe does your theology handle Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12? Please tell me - I'm all ears.

Are you still trying to jam Jesus into Isa 52-53?

My goodness, how long are you going to beat that tired old drum?

Isa 52-53 isn’t about Jesus, it refers to a personification of Israel, which is the servant.

What are some of the requirements, according to the Law of God, for a valid sin sacrifice?

Why don’t you list them and show how Jesus complied with them.

[Crazy Donna]

Actually, we don't think the Gospel is a message you haven't heard; it's a truth that you've chosen not to embrace. Yet.

This smacks of arrogance. You presume to tell us what we think, with no evidence other than your own opinion. There is a plethora of evidence on this site to the contrary, that you choose to ignore, just like some the embarrassing parts of your special magic book, which advocates rape victims marrying their rapists and disobedient children being stoned to death. If you can't accept those parts as right, why should we accept your opinion of what we are thinking, which you are basing on that self same book?

 

But as you all understand - salvation is by God's grace, His unmerited favor - so there's no extra jewels to be earned towards that end. "props from peers"? Then we'd be pretty shallow people as a whole - not that being shallow is not possible, and not that some believers are not shallow. We need to take our lumps when we deserve it.

If salvation is commonly held to be via 'god's grace, his unmerited favour', then why have we had other christians on this site trying to tell us that Anne Frank would be saved because of her good works? You should read the rest of the thread.

 

You're shallow, because the only reason you worship god is to escape hell. You'd worship Kevin Costner's left testicle if it was offering you the same deal. That's shallow.

 

But in this venue? I mean, where's the danger? It doesn't require courage to post on this site. So where's the props?

 

A challenge? - at some level. And I think all people should be challenged to explain and verify the veracity and efficacy of their beliefs.

 

I agree. So if you post something that's full of holes, I'm going to demand an explanation.

 

For me - I certainly seek for the salvation of the lost. If I thought that this was some 'lost cause' from an eternal perspective, then I wouldn't bother. But as I look at the Scriptures >> I see Abraham & Sarah, Moses, Rahab, Ruth, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Nebuchadnezzar, Matthew, Peter, John, Paul, etc. men & women living by faith in God - and accomplish great things in history. And yet - they all started as unbelievers, as we all do. And yet some of them pondered, thought, and reasoned through re: creation, man, history, etc and they considered alternate religious perspectives. But some of these guys were absolutely anti-God, anti-Jesus... And the same is true of Luther, Hus, Wycliffe, Calvin, Moody, Spurgeon, and a plethora of missionary families.

Seeking for the 'salvation of the lost' is just a christian biased way of saying you're here to force your opinion on the rest of us because you think it's good for us. Coupled with that is the expectation you hold that we are unable, or incapable, of making a decision for ourselves. That is inherently patronising and comes across strongly in your posts. Just because you think you are right does in no way MAKE you right. To live and let live, and be content that others do not share your views, and to learn not to force those views on others and take it as a personal insult when they are not welcome is a big part of personal growth. While christians (not necessarily you) continue to ignore the right of others to say "no thanks", then the christian can have no true personal growth, because they are just satisfying their own selfish needs -- their 'need' to be right, and their 'need' to be agreed with. That is not love.

 

I'm not 'anti god' or 'anti jesus'. I don't BELIEVE in them. How can you be against something you don't believe in? It's like saying you're against leprechauns! "Damn those leprechauns, they're evil! I am unequivocally anti leprechaun!" Do you see how stupid that is? You can't be against something which, in your experience, doesn't exist. If you were seeing this from our perspective, that would be blatantly obvious. Learn some empathy and you'll soon understand this.

 

and God called them, they responded in repentance and faith - and they lived amazing lives followed by an eternity in heaven. Am I bedazzled by God's grace and His gracious salvation - here and there? Absolutely. Have I experienced some of what other believers have before me? To some small degree, yes.

 

Would I want this salvation for others? Most assuredly!

 

But finally - I just enjoy the jousting.

You know, we were all christians, and we believed that our lives would be transformed by god. But they were not. All the promises god makes were found to be empty lives. I have never been more miserable than I was as a christian. Now that I don't have to find ways to rationalise all those lies that comprise christianity, I am truly happy. I am not happy because I am free to sin. I live my life by the same moral code I used as a christian -- doing no harm to others wherever possible.

 

Wanting what you have for others is a good thing. But knowing when to accept that your 'gift' is not welcome, and has actually caused harm to others, is a better thing, because that truly demonstrates empathy with other human beings. It is easy to have empathy for people whose beliefs and attitudes are similar to yours. It's much harder to express this empathy to people whose beliefs are contrary to your own.

[Mister Pappy]

This is looking more fun than usual ....

[Mister Pappy]

So which is it - God's sovereign election, or man's response to the Gospel? Well, it's both. How can that be? Well, that's a true mystery of the Christian faith.

A more accurate definition would be that it is a "true contradiction of the Christian faith" - one of many. Defenders of biblical inerrancy may choose a fancy label for it, but in it's most simplistic form, it is nothing more than a contradiction - no real surprise here.

Now here you just denigrate God - He is not the stage manager. God is the author, originator, source, of all that happens. And the universe is playing out His divine script in accordance with His wishes, and all to the praise of His glory.

Prove it. I understand that you may believe this to be the case, but don't expect us to. Bold claims do not equate to truth.

 

Really? And so how hoe does your theology handle Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12? Please tell me - I'm all ears.

Those verses have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus. I find it amazing that you guys try to draw connections between the two. Before basing a theology on irrelevant scripture, you should first at least make an attempt to connect the dots for your audience. Problem is, there aren't any dots to connect in this case - only a very vivid imagination.

 

I think these verses are self-explanatory, but if you still have questions about how Christian 'works' are accomplished in conjunction with the grace of God... well, just lemme know.

You have done a very nice job at making my point again Ray. Your beloved Bible is full of contradictory material. So ... for every scripture Centauri may come up with, making his point clearly, you can certainly find several more to contradict them - thus the Bible is full of contradictions. You won't get an argument about that here.

 

Actually, we don't think the Gospel is a message you haven't heard; it's a truth that you've chosen not to embrace. Yet.

Ray ... you have a penchant for being wrong don't you. Most of us here HAVE embraced the Christian truth - some of us for a very long time before embracing more truth. You have alleged that we "choose" not to embrace / believe the Gospel - wrong again. What one believes is not a choice. Maybe you can enlighten me as to how one goes about believing that which he or she does not believe. I would like to know how that is accomplished. If you can tell me how it is possible to "choose" to believe something that my mind finds unbelievable, I will concede the point and you can chalk up a "W" for yourself. As of now, methinks such a feat is impossible.

[Crazy Donna]

 

So you want us to believe three things.

(1) god chooses ultimately who gets saved.

(2) god holds man responsible for whether they get saved or not (despite already having chosen himself who will be saved and who won't)

(3) it is man's responsibility to be saved or not, even though they have no power over it, since god has already decided who will be saved and who won't.

 

Your explanation is meaningless. Don't you realise that god choosing who is saved, and man choosing who is saved, are two mutually exclusive things. You only get saved if god chooses to save you. You can't override god. So if god wants you to burn, but you want to be saved, you're fucked. He's already decided what he wants to do with you.

 

Which is it? Because saying that it's our responsibility to override god's decision is a cop out, and ignores the fact that god has chosen who will be saved or not. What we decide is worthless. It's up to god.

 

Prove me wrong. You just believe whatever is convenient at the time. First god saves us, then we save us and we have to ignore the fact that god chooses who is saved. What is it? It's not enough to just produce scripture that argues either position. You have to show us which is the RIGHT position, because these two ideas are mutually exclusive. You can't have one and the other at the same time. One abrogates the other.

 

What I am saying is this, "Eureka! You've found it" - yes, these are mutually exclusive concepts >> for the finite, mortal mind. These truths compose an antinomy, two seemingly mutually exclusive conclusions that are both true. JI Packer makes this point in his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. God is sovereign in salvation, and man is responsible to repent and believe in response to the truth about Jesus the Messiah. Both these are true.

 

Can I fully understand how both can be true? No. Does that mean that both cannot be true? No. God with His infinite, divine mind has no problem creating a universe in which both these concepts are true - and that's all that matters. This is the God of the Bible. What He requires of me is the humility to acknowledge my nature as finite and flawed - even sinful; and that I recognize that He is holy, just and gracious >> and that His offer of salvation extends from His mercy & love. Should I refuse God because I cannot fully comprehend all that He has created?

 

Cheap, lazy, cop out answer. You're telling us to believe two mutually exclusive things at the same time. I knew you would resort to the 'gods ways aren't our ways' cop out line. Bullshit. That is NOT an explanation. If that is the best you've got, Ray, you'd better quit posting. Telling me that god magically makes it possible for two mutually exclusive things to be true is not an answer. It is resorting to magical thinking. You might as well tell me that if I believe in the magical My Little Pony I'll go to My Little Pony Farm and spend eternity combing the hair of magical, plastic, sweetly fragranced giant horses. It would carry as much weight.

 

You must really think we're fucking idiots to pull that bullshit, Ray. Pull your hand out of your trousers and give us a real answer, not a stupid appeal to magical thinking.

 

In reality, two mutually exclusive concepts cannot be both true. You either breath or you don't. If you don't breath, the consequences are pretty serious. Here's another one for you. Are we saved by works or by believing in jesus? Careful how you answer, you could be sending us to the pit of eternal fire.

 

How can I even think that I am able to fully understand God and His purposes? That would be sheer arrogance.

I can answer that question. Because your fucking salvation DEPENDS ON IT, idiot. This fake humility, trying to disguise the fact that you cannot answer my question, will not impress anyone here. We see right through it and are calling shenanigans.

 

 

But I am to respond to what I can understand and observe and experience - my inherent sin, and God accomplishing all that is needed for salvation in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Messiah.

 

But as an example of seeming contradiction - light, is it a wave or a particle? Because for many years, Man knew that physical phenomena were either one or the other. EM radiations are waves, matter consists of particles.

 

Since light is part of the EM spectrum, and we could prove that light acted as a wave, we knew light was a wave. Then de Broglie proved that light was indeed also a particle. So now we understand that light is both - a wave and a particle. Do we fully understand this true phenomenon of science? No. Do we know it to be true? Yes.

 

So we can't reject the truth simply because it doesn't fit with what we now hold to be mutually exclusive.

So you're going to use light, which demonstrates traits of a wave, and traits of a particle, as an analogy for a question you're brushing off with 'god is too hard to understand'. Then you hope I don't notice you have not answered my question.

 

You're saying that just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it's true, but then fail to enlighten us.

 

Light's tendency to display qualities of a wave or a particle have been well documented. We can study light and observe it behaving as a wave, and as a particle. However, according to complementarity, we cannot observe light being a wave, AND being a particle, AT THE SAME TIME. Yet you are asking us to do this with whether god decides who is saved, or whether we do. So your analogy falls down.

 

Still haven't answered my question, Ray.

[Mister Pappy]

You might as well tell me that if I believe in the magical My Little Pony I'll go to My Little Pony Farm and spend eternity combing the hair of magical, plastic, sweetly fragranced giant horses. It would carry as much weight.

Donna ... This is the logic of a man who has been backed into a corner once too often and has finally grown weary of it, so he has stopped entering square rooms. GREAT RESPONSE! GO GIRL!

[Jackie]

 

Hi there, Jackie! Welcome to the forums.

 

I'm in Victoria. What state are you in?

 

Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi Oi Oi!

 

And I totally second your sentiments. Nothing lasts forever. You have to grab life with both hands.

 

 

Hi Crazy Donna!

 

Great to see another Aussie on the forums, not so many of us! And thanks for the welcome!

 

I'm in NSW. Sydney actually.

 

Have you got a testimony somewhere?

 

Have a good weekend!

 

Jackie

[bdp]

Hey Ray! Congrats on your status as "Most annoying christian"!

 

A-fucking-Men.

[bdp]

How can I even think that I am able to fully understand God and His purposes? That would be sheer arrogance.

 

 

 

Yep, that's you exactly and completely.

[Ouroboros]

Oh, Ray is back!

 

Long time since last posting.

 

It looks like you haven't changed. There's no need for me to engage then.

[bornagainathiest]

It think it's prudent to say that LNC might well overturn all of my musings, thru something I've overlooked. But I'd still like to see and understand how he'd do that - hence my keen anticipation of his response.

 

Nevertheless, a little more digging seems to reveal two more anomalies. Two more cases where scripture indicates that Jesus is not the only way to deflect God's wrath and safely enter into the Father's presence. Take Genesis 5: 24. The patriarch Enoch lived in a time before Jesus, before the Prophets, before Moses and before the time of Noah and the Flood. Yet, somehow he was able to walk with God, because God took him away and he did not see death. How? Thru believing in and trusting in Jesus, centuries before the Son of God existed? I'd like to know how Enoch avoided God's justified wrath, wouldn't you, O.F.?

 

Now look at 2 Kings 2: 11 & 12. What's this? Someone else going up into the Father's presence without knowing anything of, letting alone believing in and trusting in Jesus?

We can be absolutely certain that Elijah went into the close presence of the Father without fear or harm because of the Gospel descriptions of Jesus' transfiguration. (See Matthew 17 : 1 - 8 / Mark 9 : 1 - 8 / Luke 9 : 28 - 36) Interestingly, God the Father still cannot be seen at this point. He is hidden from the gaze of Peter, John and James by a bright cloud, much like the OT descriptions of smoke and clouds hiding Him from the gaze of unredeemed sinners. This is significant, because Jesus hadn't completed his work upon the cross yet, so the Apostles were still unredeemed by his blood. God the Father's wrath was still upon them, which explains why they had to be protected from catching sight of Him and being destroyed. That work of redemption (deflecting the Father's wrath away from us and onto himself) wasn't completed until the moment of Jesus' death. We know this because the Gospels tell us that the long-standing separation of God from His disobedient and rebellious creations (us) came to an end right then. Not in the time of Enoch or Elijah, but then!

 

So, what started with Adam and Eve's temptation and transgression in Genesis was finished when Jesus breathed his last and died. (See Matthew 27 : 50 - 53 / Mark 15 : 37 & 38 / Luke 23 : 44 - 46 / John 19 : 30)

The confirming signs that God's wrath was deflected away from us and onto Jesus can be clearly seen.

1.

The temple curtain, which separated unredeemed sinners from the very presence of God in the, 'holy-of-holies', was torn in two. Note that it was torn from top-to-bottom, from heaven-down-to-earth. The way into the presence of the Father had been opened, not by the works or efforts of man, but by God-incarnated-as-a-man, that is Jesus Christ. That is why, 'Nobody comes to the Father, except thru me." So how did Enoch and Elijah do it then?

2.

Tombs broke open and holy people were raised back to life, appearing to many in Jerusalem. This event is a lesser and earlier symbol of the greater resurrection that will take place on the Last Day. Once again, it would not have been possible unless Jesus had successfully completed his work of wrath-deflection upon the cross. And... once again, we have the same problem as before. Enoch and Elijah were both taken up alive into heaven, centuries before the crucifixion. How was that possible, with the Father's wrath still upon them?

3.

"It is finished!" Exactly! Jesus' work of wrath-deflection was completed there and then. Not in the time of Enoch and not in the time of Elijah.

 

Y'know what, O.F.?

 

I'm coming round to the idea that LNC's a Calvinist. That might just fit, if we take the concept of Irresistible Grace into account when examining his p.o.v. That would explain quite a lot, imho.

 

So, if we look at Exodus 9 : 16, Romans 9 : 14 - 24 and Malachi 1 : 1 - 3, it could be that the Pharaoh of Egypt and Esau aren't exceptions - they're the rule. Everyone whom God hasn't predestined to believe in and trust in Jesus (LNC's parameters for salvation, remember!) is simply an 'object of wrath - prepared (before the foundation of the world) for destruction'. Yep! You, me, my brother Paul, my unborn sister and all the unborn dead, all of the mentally unfit, all those (like your Amazonian native) who lived and died without hearing the Good News via a Christian Missionary, all of us are... DOOMED!

 

Tyrant, eh? Oh well, if the hat fits...

 

BAA.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To LNC...

 

Please respond to our questions. As you can see, we are earnestly trying to understand your position and are coming to conclusions that could well be off-beam. Please help us out here.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

p.s.

 

If my earlier post about irresistible force and immovable object has upset you, I apologize. I mistakenly thought you were avoiding the issue of John 3:18. Thank you for clarifying that.

 

Hello LNC.

 

Well BAA, I'm glad that this exercise has caused you to read the Bible! May your tribe increase!

 

Interesting. This exercise has caused me to read the Bible?

Nope. Sorry friend, that's not quite right.

 

This exercise, as you call it, has not caused me to read the Bible any more than I would normally do when debating with Christian Apologists.

What I'm doing here is simply calling upon the store of learning and knowledge that I accumulated when I was a Christian.

Oh, and I'm also doing one other thing. I'm calling attention to certain Biblical ambiguities and contradictions, ones which I knew about as a Christian. That was then, this is now. Then, I'd have been happy to say that these were divine mysteries that required faith to accept as true and real. Even if they appeared to defy logic and reason, provided that I put my faith in God, I could overcome (i.e., overlook) these problems. Now, I can't do that. Now, I'm asking questions. Now I don't have that 'faith' any more and I'd like some answers. Hence, my presence in this thread.

 

You missed a couple of other examples of people in the OT who we know were saved. Paul talks about Abraham and David in Romans 4, both of whom were saved by faith, prior to Jesus having walked the earth in a physical body (however, he was believed to have made pre-incarnate appearances a few times (Gen. 22; Judges 6 & elsewhere). It says of Abraham that he believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Paul explains in Galatians that salvation by faith/trust has always been the model; however, in the OT, the only way to remove sin was to faithfully keep the sacrificial Law, to trust in God through those sacrifices; however, he makes clear that Jesus was the final and complete sacrifice. The author of Hebrews tells us that the blood of bulls and goats would not ultimately take away sins (Heb 10), but that "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (10:10).

 

So, when Enoch and Elijah walked with God or when Abraham or David was declared righteous, it was because of their trust in God and his future provision of sending Jesus to make the final sacrifice on their behalf.

 

Now we come to it!

 

Rhetorical Q. Could you please show us where in the scriptures we can read about God telling Enoch that He will send His Son Jesus to make a final sacrifice on behalf of all humanity?

Rhetorical A. You can't.

 

We both know that you cannot do that, because such scripture does not exist. That's why I've presented this issue in the form of a rhetorical question and answer. Scripture is totally silent about how Enoch was able know the following...

1. That the God of the Jews was a trinity of three clearly different persons, combined into one essence.

2. That two persons, the Father and the Holy Spirit, were incapable of making the necessary sacrifice to free humanity from it's burden of sin.

3. That the remaining person was capable.

4. That this person would become a human being in order to make that sacrifice.

5. That the identity of this person was Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

6. That to please God, Enoch was required to put his faith in Jesus, not God the Father.

7. That to please God, Enoch was required to put his faith in Jesus, not God the Holy Spirit.

 

Perhaps you can explain to us how Enoch was able to comprehend these necessary steps, when scripture says nothing at all about them?

 

Cautionary note 1: Modalism lurks close at hand!

The Father and the Holy Spirit could not and did not make the sacrifice - that was why the Son became man. Do not attribute the NT work of Jesus the man to the OT God who is not, was not and never will be... just a man. Therefore, Enoch must have had a saving knowledge of Jesus to avoid God's wrath. Knowledge of and trust/belief/faith in the OT God the Father or in the OT God the Holy Spirit does not remove God's wrath.

Cautionary note 2: Never add to scripture what is not there!

By applying logic it is possible to conclude that Enoch was given the necessary information to put his trust in the correct person of the godhead. But it is vital to qualify that conclusion by clearly stating that it (the conclusion) is not scripture - it is a logical assumption made from scripture. The two are not the same thing. Once again, Enoch must have had a saving knowledge of Jesus to avoid God's wrath.

Cautionary note 3: Nobody 'earns' salvation by faith!

If Enoch did not require a saving knowledge of Jesus, but had sufficient faith to trust God the Father, please be careful not to suggest that it was Enoch's own faith that saved him. Doing that opens up a second pathway to heaven, one that completely bypasses Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. This would directly contradict your stated position LNC - that belief and trust in Jesus (not the Father) is required to avoid God's wrath. After all, it's the Father's wrath that's to be avoided, isn't it?

Cautionary note 4: Does God favor one over another?

If Enoch did not require a saving knowledge of Jesus, but God credited him with righteousness sufficient for salvation, then you've got a double problem.

First, there's that non-Jesus pathway to heaven again and second, isn't this favoritism on God's part? Ok, God can 'have mercy on who He will have mercy' and it's impossible for us to know why. Why? Because His perceived favoritism is simply an outworking of His complete foreknowledge. If knowing in advance who will trust Jesus and who will not is the basis of His decisions, then (in human terms, at least) we have another problem. Not only can we not know why He decides in the way He does, logic suggests that a totally good, fair and just God cannot show favoritism. He will have the appearance of showing favor, but this appearance is an illusion, generated by our lack of all-knowledge and all-wisdom. So, one half of the double problem vanishes if we concede that His ways are not our ways and we simply have to trust Him. But the non-Jesus pathway to heaven, caused by Enoch not requiring a saving knowledge of Jesus, remains. So does the contradiction with your stated position.

Cautionary note 5: Don't we get to choose?

If God foreknows who will trust in Jesus and who won't, then this must apply to all humanity, from Adam to those who will be alive on the Last Day. There can be no exceptions. So, if Enoch was credited with righteousness sufficient for salvation, then it was God who was the prime moving agent in this process, not Enoch. Enoch is simply the empty vessel into whom God has poured righteousness sufficient for salvation. Enoch did next to nothing, because before the universe was created, God foreknew that even though Enoch would have some measure of trust, this was not enough to earn salvation and avoid God's wrath. Where Enoch's trust was lacking, God 'topped it up' by crediting him with righteousness sufficient for salvation and avoidance of God's wrath.

Even if it could be argued that Enoch was exercising his free will in this scenario, the non-Jesus pathway to heaven is still there. The person of Jesus just doesn't enter into the equation. Provided Enoch is credited by God with righteousness sufficient for salvation and the avoidance of God's wrath, he's home! Please note that following this line would also cause you to contradict yourself LNC.

 

Any way you look at it (imho) Enoch needs to have knowledge of Jesus so that he can put his trust in the correct part of the trinity, be saved from his sins and avoid God's wrath. Nothing else will do. Trusting in God the Father or God the Holy Spirit would mean trusting in a proxy of the debt payer, not trusting in the debt payer Himself. Tetelestai by Jesus and no other, for all flesh? No favors from the Father? No exceptions, mitigations or special circumstances? Yes?

 

So LNC, if you cannot show us the scripture where Enoch trusts in Jesus (not Yahweh, God the Father or any other) that's fine.

Likewise, if you can show us that it must be logically entailed that Enoch must have trusted only in Jesus, that's cool too. Here it would be significant if you were to make it crystal clear that this is a logical entailment of scripture, not scripture itself. As I mentioned above, that which is logically derived from scripture is not scripture itself. It is not God's Word, but a logical outworking of it. Agreed?

 

However, please do not ask us to accept that any OT character could place their trust in anyone/anything else and still be saved. If you go down this road, then please say how anything other than Christ's finished work on the cross can be the equivalent to it. Or a proxy of it. Or a path around it. Or a get-out-of-jail-for-free card. Or anything else. Thanks.

When Jesus said, "it is finished", the Greek word was tetelestai, which is a term that means "paid in full". Jesus was saying that the debt of sin has been paid and we are told elsewhere that if we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (believing meaning trust as I have explained in earlier posts), then we will be saved (Acts 16:30).

You are right about the Temple curtain be torn in two in that the curtain was a thick layering of fabrics that separated the Holy of Holies, the place where God showed himself and where only the High Priest could go, open to all who would trust in Jesus. In other words, God's dwelling is now within each believer rather than just in the Holy of Holies. The wall of separation had been torn open at Jesus' death on the cross.

I have addressed the issue of OF's brother and sister in other posts, so I won't readdress it here. I hope this is helpful.

LNC

p.s. No problem about the John 3:18 thing. There is a great delay between when you write your posts and I actually get around to replying. There are so many of you and only one of me

 

BAA.

 

p.s.

So are you a Calvinist then?

[bornagainathiest]

Oh, Ray is back!

 

Long time since last posting.

 

It looks like you haven't changed. There's no need for me to engage then.

 

Talking of re-engagement, how 'bout this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Ray! (waves)

 

Care to make a one-on-one comparison between this... http://thevibe.socialvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/arizona-grand-canyon-vista.jpg the Grand Canyon, here on Earth

 

and this... http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html ...canyon on Mars?

 

Why does the Martian canyon in the above picture look just like the Deluge-created one in Arizona?

 

God killing off those sinful Martians with a planet-wide flood perhaps?

 

I await your avoidance of this simple question with anticipation.

 

BAA.

[Deva]

Hey Ray! Congrats on your status as "Most annoying christian"!

 

A-fucking-Men.

 

Yeah, he had to overcome a lot of close contenders to get that designation.

[rayskidude]

Hey Ray! Congrats on your status as "Most annoying christian"!

 

A-fucking-Men.

 

Yeah, he had to overcome a lot of close contenders to get that designation.

 

As they say at the Oscars;

 

Wow, whew, oh, what can I say? There are so many people that I want to thank, because so many have played an integral role to get me to where I am today. I'm so fortunate to have been in the right place at the right time, with all those people close to me (wife & kids, parents, other family and friends) who have supported me in my endeavors, and then I just walked thru some open doors - and well, the rest is history. There's been great directors, producters, supporting cast - and you all , my loyal fans. And finally, I want to thank the academy.

 

Whadayya think? Or maybe I could do Sally Fields?

 

Oh, oh - I just can't believe it! You like me... you really like me!

 

But in all seriousness, it is good to be back - I had a real busy summer being out-of-the-country 5 weeks on missions projects, then out of town with family stuff for a few weeks, then some unexpected stuff at work. But I truly missed you guys and our interactions over eternal verities.

 

So, let's get on with it!

[rayskidude]

Oh, Ray is back!

 

Long time since last posting.

 

It looks like you haven't changed. There's no need for me to engage then.

 

Talking of re-engagement, how 'bout this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Ray! (waves)

 

Care to make a one-on-one comparison between this... http://thevibe.socialvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/arizona-grand-canyon-vista.jpg the Grand Canyon, here on Earth

 

and this... http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html ...canyon on Mars?

 

Why does the Martian canyon in the above picture look just like the Deluge-created one in Arizona?

 

God killing off those sinful Martians with a planet-wide flood perhaps?

 

I await your avoidance of this simple question with anticipation.

 

BAA.

 

Are you telling me that you've forgotten the several posts I assembled to answer this question? But remember - as I recall, you never once presented your opinion for how this Martian canyon was crafted. I await your answer BAA - in your humble opinion, how was it formed?

[Xerces]

But in all seriousness, it is good to be back - I had a real busy summer being out-of-the-country 5 weeks on missions projects, then out of town with family stuff for a few weeks, then some unexpected stuff at work. But I truly missed you guys and our interactions over eternal verities.

 

I like how they call them "missions". You know why I hate missionaries? Cause they go after the people that don't have access to a lot of information therefore making the buybull seem more believable to them.

[rayskidude]

['centauri' timestamp=1287112686' post='613047]

 

rayskidude says ...Peter squarely places the responsibility on them to assess their true guilt and then to receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit - and he tells them "Save yourselves..."

 

This doesn’t change anything either. Some people are predestined to believe regardless of what Peter requires them to do. There is no need for them to do anything. God's will and purpose already took care of that.

 

Listen if you don't want to accept the clear statements in Scripture - that's your prerogative. But please, don't lay out an answer that simply ignores the Scriptural truth, and then pass it off as, "This is what the Bible teaches.". Man must repent & believe, never does Scripture say that God believes for a man, but rather a man must himself believe. God elects, draws, calls, woos, etc through His common grace and through His special grace found in the Gospel. BUT - man must repent and believe.

 

If you refuse to acknowledge clear statements and simple terms - than say so, 'cuz it's pointless to discuss anything under those conditions.

 

So which is it - God's sovereign election, or man's response to the Gospel? Well, it's both. How can that be? Well, that's a true mystery of the Christian faith. says rayskidude

 

When something can’t be rationally reconciled, placing it under the category of a “mystery” keeps people from questioning the incoherent nature of the theology.

 

And you actually think that the only religion worth considering is one that is completely in line with your finite mind with its limited capabilities of reason, logic, and thought processes? And your god isn't any more than some slightly more developed and marginally more intelligent & capable version of yourself? Or that no religion is worth pursuing - because none of them rise to meet your lofty self-imposed standards of your personal logic, reason, etc.

 

Your god is your mind, your person, your will, yourself.

 

And are you actually stating that 'mystery' is inapplicable in matters relating to God and His ways and purposes?

 

Do you actually interact with other people regularly? Please name the person which you completely and fully understand. You cannot - 'cuz no one can.

 

Men & women - even in a good marriage - are often a mystery to each other. Wow - guys and girls think differently - and sometimes in what seem like contradictory and mysterious ways??!! Whoduh thunk it! Not to mention Repubs & Dems & Greens & commies & anarchists, etc. Hindu vs Muslim vs Shinto vs Christian, etc. It is a 'mystery' to me as to how the people different from me reason and come to conclusions that to me are simply non-sensical.

 

And I don't for a moment think my experience is any different than yours.

 

And yet - you want to remove 'mystery' when Christians are talking about how finite humans with limited capabilities relate to an infinite, eternal, holy God.

 

And you think your position here makes sense?

 

According to you it’s not proper to point out the obvious when it comes to describing a being that creates things as part of a continual effort to glorify himself.

 

See, here is the evidence. You castigate a being that creates and works to celebrate its own glory. And this would be correct if that being were finite, dependent, contingent, derived, etc. because that being would be unworthy of all glory. This would apply to all humans.

 

But for a Being that is independent, self-sufficient, self-existent, Sovereign LORD of all >> and infinite regarding time, space, power, knowledge, mercy, love. grace, forgiveness, etc. >> then for that God to seek to glorify anyone or anything more than Himself - that God would be guilty of idolatry.

 

God simply obeys the first and greatest commandment - to love God with His whole heart & soul & mind & strength.

 

Are you still trying to jam Jesus into Isa 52-53? My goodness, how long are you going to beat that tired old drum? Isa 52-53 isn’t about Jesus, it refers to a personification of Israel, which is the servant.

 

As others have said - your saying so doesn't make it so - so please show through the context of the Book of Isaiah, esp beginning in chap 40, how Isa 52 & 53 refers to Israel.

[rayskidude]

['Crazy Donna' timestamp=1287115032' post='613055]

 

Seeking for the 'salvation of the lost' is just a christian biased way of saying you're here to force your opinion on the rest of us because you think it's good for us. Coupled with that is the expectation you hold that we are unable, or incapable, of making a decision for ourselves. That is inherently patronising and comes across strongly in your posts. Just because you think you are right does in no way MAKE you right. To live and let live, and be content that others do not share your views, and to learn not to force those views on others and take it as a personal insult when they are not welcome is a big part of personal growth. While christians (not necessarily you) continue to ignore the right of others to say "no thanks", then the christian can have no true personal growth, because they are just satisfying their own selfish needs -- their 'need' to be right, and their 'need' to be agreed with. That is not love.

 

I'm not privy to your experiences, but I am a proponent of winning over people thru reasoned debate, rational thought processes, appeals to sensibility, etc. And though I know that some Christians can use high-pressure tactics, no one can 'force' anyone to believe anything. So I always wonder when such language is used. Obviously, it didn't work with you - so how could you have been actually forced?

 

Do Christians feel the need to be right - sure, sometimes. Have they presented Gospel truth in what seems to be a mean-spirited way >> sure. For which we richly deserve the criticism.

 

I'm not 'anti god' or 'anti jesus'. I don't BELIEVE in them. How can you be against something you don't believe in? It's like saying you're against leprechauns! Do you see how stupid that is? You can't be against something which, in your experience, doesn't exist. If you were seeing this from our perspective, that would be blatantly obvious. Learn some empathy and you'll soon understand this.

 

I believe that I do understand you to some degree, but realize that when it comes to discussing the existence of God, to not believe that He exists in to be anti-God.

 

If I do not believe that the Yanomano people of South America actually exist, then I would never do anything to acknowledge them nor help them. Yet they do actually exist; so I am, in effect, anti-Yanomano.

[LNC]

I might not like it if I proposed marriage to a woman and she rejected me, but it's hardly a sin. It's her right. Since when is declining an unwanted relationship worthy of death, much less eternal death? And what do we think of people who attack those who "refuse" to "love" them? Mentally ill, right? We put them in jail before they can hurt people. We don't allow lovers to respond to being jilted by assaulting the object of their "love".

 

First, we are not discussing like situations here. You have no legal obligation to love a spouse or even a betrothed. People live in loveless marriages all the time. As long as there is no abuse, the law has no say about whether spouses are obligated to love one another. However, it is different with a sovereign. One is not allowed to willfully reject the rule of a sovereign and the laws decreed by that sovereign. This is why we have courts and prisons both heavily populated. People who reject the laws of the land and thumb their noses at those in power are incarcerated and even put to death should the situation warrant. This happens in earthly courts where justice is far from perfect. However, in the heavenly court, the laws and the administration thereof, are perfect. No one will be found guilty who is not and no one will be declared innocent who is not. We are eternal beings, so the punishment will be administered for as long as the person is unrepentant and under the penalty. Unfortunately, when we make our decision on earth, the die is cast and no one changes his or her mind afterward. Jesus told the story of the rich man and Lazerus. The rich man died and though he saw Abraham and Lazerus in paradise, he didn't repent, he merely asked that someone warn his brothers. Abraham tells him that his brothers had enough witness through the Law and the prophets and even if someone rose from the dead, they would not believe. It's interesting that even after Jesus rose from the dead and people knew that it happened, they refused to believe (see Pilate as an example).

 

At any rate we're left with this:

 

1) Jesus died for someone who never hears the gospel, and they die without accepting = not guilty of rejecting Jesus, but still has original sin, so not saved.

2) Jesus died for someone who hears the gospel, understands it, dies without accepting = not saved

3) Jesus dies for someone who hears the gospel, accepts it = they are saved

 

Therefore Jesus' death on the cross saves (3) but condemns (1) and (2).

 

Here are my responses:

 

1) People have more than original sin by which they are judged. Paul tells us in Romans that we have enough evidence to know that God exists (ch.1) and that we have our consciences by which we are judged (ch.2) and that people still suppress the truth in unrighteousness (ch.1) and cannot even keep the standards of our consciences by which we judge others (ch.2), therefore, God has enough in these two situations by which to declare each of us guilty (ch.3).

2) There is more than just not accepting it, there is the choice to reject it involved here. That is what many do not want to hear and consider. When the choice is put before us, we make a choice, even if the choice is to not make a choice, that is a choice to reject the choice.

3) Jesus dies for the whole world, but only some accept the kind offer.

 

Therefore, Jesus death and resurrection are sufficient to save the whole world, but efficient (effective) for those who put their trust in him. The ones how are condemned are so because they have rebelled against God and rejected the only hope of their salvation. Jesus death and resurrection have nothing directly to do with that condemnation, except for the fact that the rejection of the offer of salvation is the final act of sealing one's condemnation, but it is not the reason for the condemnation. Again, if a doctor offers treatment to heal a terminal patient and the patient rejects the doctor's offer, it is not the doctor who had sealed the patient's fate to die, but the patient who did so by rejecting the offer of healing treatment.

 

That leaves us with belief and acceptance being the critical elements -- not the actual sacrifice. Technically it doesn't matter if the sacrifice even happened because it's only effective in the presence of belief. I suppose you could say they have to have the sacrifice to believe in, it can't be any random thing, but it seems odd that if God is not willing that any should perish, he should guarantee huge numbers of them will perish by requiring them to accept his salvation rather than simply saving them unconditionally.

 

I've never understood the argument that failing to give us a choice would violate free will. What violates free will is giving someone a false choice, only one of which is "correct" and the other of which results in eternal punishment. That is coercion.

 

Perhaps the critical element is not merely belief and acceptance, but repentance, since God doesn't want willful sinners and degenerates in heaven. But the Bible teaches that when we are saved we receive a new nature, to replace the old "sin nature", so if God simply unconditionally saved us, heaven would be full of these people with these new natures. Still imperfect, but then so are Christians anyway. If the new nature means anything it results in one's heart inclined to do good rather than evil, which is obviously acceptable to God for heavenly citizenship, since that would describe any "good" Christian.

 

There would be nothing to believe in or trust had Jesus not died and rose again, so I think your logic is off here. If the sacrifice didn't happen, then we are still in our sins and nobody is saved, we are all condemned to suffer for our sins. It is not the sacrifice that we believe in, it is Jesus in whom we trust. It was his death on the cross and his resurrection that became the sacrifice necessary to pay for our sins. If Jesus hadn't have died on the cross, we could still believe in him as God, but we would still be responsible for paying for our sins. As for God guaranteeing that huge numbers trust in him, I would ask how he does that without violating our free wills and without imposing himself upon us through coercion? People argue that God is being coercive as it is and reject him (so they say) because of that, so how is it that you want God to be more coercive?

 

How can you get around the dichotomy of that we either have freedom to choose or the choice is made for us? It seems a pretty clear distinction. You are incorrect in your assessment, even giving a person a bad choice (which I don't believe is the case here) is still to honor free will. However, the choice here is not coercive or unfair. The choice is that we can either suffer a penalty that we have earned and richly deserve, or we can trust in Jesus and his kind offer of having taken that sin upon him and having suffered it on our behalf, thereby escaping the punishment and spending eternity in his presence. What is unfair about that? What is coercive about that. We deserve the punishment, he did not. He took the punishment on our behalf, so we would not have to. It doesn't sound coercive to me. The problem is that we have fooled ourselves into thinking that we are good people who do not deserve punishment. I live near a big city and hear it all the time when a gang member is shot and killed. The family will say that he was a good person and didn't deserve to die. We then read the actual story and find out that the person had a rap sheet a mile long and was in the act of committing a crime when shot and killed. Still, we convince ourselves that we are good people.

 

God will not force anyone to trust in him. Would you marry a woman who was forced to marry you, yet who hated you? I think if God wanted to populate heaven with robots, he could have done that, but he chose to populate heaven with people created in his image, with a free will to choose to love him and trust him. I think that God must value this more than he values having automatons filling heaven. I think that I am glad that I married a woman who is a free creature and who chose to marry me and love me rather than a being who merely did whatever I asked it to do. There is no real relationship with that type of being.

 

LNC

[Xerces]

 

 

Throughout that whole post you basically kept on saying god is right in every way and we shouldn't question him cause hes a mystery just like human beings. Well if god is all powerful then he should have the ability to make himself completely understandable and GIVE us the ability to help us understand him. Because in that, would be a powerful motivator and reason to believe, believing by faith is a crock of shit. We don't need mystery and scripture, we need EVIDENCE.

 

Also, don't think for one second that you can tell someone not to question the bible, we can question anything we want and not everything is taken out of context, because I am almost certain you simply say something is out of context when someone poses a scripture error to you, because you look for a context when there is none.

[Xerces]

I believe that I do understand you to some degree, but realize that when it comes to discussing the existence of God, to not believe that He exists in to be anti-God.

 

If I do not believe that the Yanomano people of South America actually exist, then I would never do anything to acknowledge them nor help them. Yet they do actually exist; so I am, in effect, anti-Yanomano.

 

Just like you're anti santa, anti zeus, anti easter bunny. Get real.

[LNC]

 

A real choice, out of free will, requires that the person has been given all the options and all the information required to make an informed choice. The Christian argument is that we must make a choice based on incomplete information. It's not a proper choice. There is not enough information to convince me that Christianity is true, so it's not a choice, but rather a default position to be in unbelief. I'll stay an unbeliever until all the information is in and I can make a proper choice. So far, science, reality, and facts of life are proving Christianity wrong, so for each day, Christianity is losing big.

 

We never have perfect knowledge when we make any choice. I didn't know when I got married if it would be a happy marriage or end in misery. I didn't know when I took my job whether it would be fulfilling or misery. I didn't know when I bought my house whether it would be a sound house or whether it would be a money pit (or more so than most houses are). I didn't know when we had kids whether I would be a good father and whether my children would love me or reject me.

 

However, the Bible makes it clear that we have enough evidence to trust in God and in Jesus, which is why so many do, but that we suppress the truth that we do have and many reject him. I am convinced that no one will stand at the judgment seat and say, as Russell said he would, that they simply did not have enough evidence, because I believe we will see our lives and see the evidence that we rejected and our mouths will be shut (at least those who reject Jesus). I have given plenty of evidence on this site and that will be some that, I believe, will be replayed. There are also websites, books, and other forms of information that are easily accessible for anyone who wants to find the answers.

 

That's right. Which is very odd. If "free will" is so important, then why is it removed in Heave by a replaced "heart" that can't do no evil? So free will is only something great and good right now, but in Heaven it's despised and removed?

 

Free will is not removed in heaven. We will be free creatures in heaven, but the presence of evil will be removed.

 

LNC

[Mister Pappy]

Listen if you don't want to accept the clear statements in Scripture - that's your prerogative.

That's the whole point, Ray. Why are you trying to prove your theology with your book of theology? Really? You can't do any better than that? You want us to believe that what you say is true because you have a book that says that what you say is true? I am unconvinced, and if that is all you are selling, you're going to go broke among this bunch.