Repenting After Death

[centauri]

centauri

God not only knows what will happen, he determines it, sets it in place, and makes it happen.

It's his idea and his plan.

At least some prople are subjected to this.

 

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:

 

OC

God chose a specific instance of an actualized world based on His knowledge of all possible counter-factuals. He knew what you would do under every possible circumstances. In this sense we are predestined. This does not mean the result is not a choice of our own. We still make the choice. God foreknew and actualized a world for us to choose.

No, there are times when the decision is made for people by God.

 

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:

 

According to whose will?

His will, not yours.

[centauri]

It would be silly to conclude we have no free will based on a single passage given the enormous number of verses in the Bible describing how we have a choice, as you demonstrated when you were trying your works argument. You are contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not because I didn't claim that every single person is subject to predestination or manipulation.

All it takes is one case to show that free choice isn't universally applicable.

You attempted to float a universal free will doctrine as factual when the Bible says otherwise.

And in the case of Christian salvation, the threat of damnation for failure to make a particular choice is applied to virtually every human that hears the gospel.

 

Under the definition you've provided, when a robber holds a gun to your head demanding your money, they're not forcing you to give them your money, and so they've given you free will.

 

Free will isn't free if the choice is accompanied by an ultimatum and threat.

Free means without charge.

The direct manipulation of humans is also practiced when God takes actions to ensure that a particular decision is made.

Such was the case with Pharaoh and the king of Heshbon.

 

OC

Not free will actions as it is logically impossible for a free willed agent to be made to do something. It is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as a square circle.

But you don't know who has free will and who doesn't, or if it exists.

Everything could be predestined.

The offer of Christian salvation isn't according to the principle of free will when the choice is made under threat.

That's coercion and an attempt to manipulate an outcome.

 

Every year people die not giving into armed robbery so obviously they have free will. There are countless people who believe in God and don't accept Him and reject His "coercion" as you put it.

Pharoah is an example.

The robber doesn't give free will to the victim.

Rejection of an ultimatum doesn't mean the decision was made under free conditions.

Your premise was that God imparts free will to humans.

That was not the case with Pharaoh because God stepped in and manipulated his behavior.

 

Choices made under threat and ultimatum are not free choices, it's coercion.

Coercion is manipulation.

 

People who pretend under coercion are not saved. I already demonstrated He knows our heart. He knows when people are faking, and they are not saved as we already establish via James 2.

That makes it even worse.

You can agree to the threat, do what the thug wants, and still be punished.

The thug has determined the outcome

[OrdinaryClay]

Jesus did stipulate that while the exact day or time was not known, it would happen within the lifetimes of his associates.

 

Matt 16:27-28

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

 

Peter was one of those being addressed here, so he did know that the end would be happening within the next few decades.

Peter's claim that the end of all things was at hand wasn't true.

It's ~2,000 years later and still no Jesus or the end of all things.

It's a failed prediction/prophecy.

 

To be honest I don't exactly how to interpret Mat 28. There are a couple preterist verses I don't understand. I'm not a preterist, and I don't believe they are failed prophecies. I just have not decided what I think are the best interpretations of this verse.

 

Peter was telling them to be sober and watch. He is telling them to pay attention and be mindful because things could happen at any time.

And it was going to happen before all of the immediate disciples of Jesus were dead.

 

It is inspired of God if it's in the Bible. Prophecy, as in foretelling the details of the future, is a subset of what is contained in the Bible.

Then God inspires failures.

Rev 1:1-3

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

This uses the same sense of urgency that Peter applied in his prediction.

Neither prediction came true.

 

Rev 1:1-3 are the same as Peter's words (which does show coherency within the Bible). They are not prophecy. Most of revelation is true prophecy, but these words are not prophecy. He did not know when it would happen, and Jesus told them to be on the "edge of their seats" as described in Mat 25.

 

 

Context shows that Jesus was addressing his disciples privately, not the nation.

They asked Jesus for a sign, which he gives in verse 30.

He did not have radio so He could not have been addressing the nation. It is perfectly reasonable to address a small group and refer to other groups while doing so.

[agnosticator]

Christianity is the Tower of Babel. It represents humans' attempt to reach God, but fails, and only confusion and incessant stream of words come out of it.

 

That would make Christians Babel believers.

[OrdinaryClay]

It's also illogical to conclude that traditions and mere claims make something true.

You have no problem relying on Paul, who was instructed by a shining light that claimed to be Jesus.

(It could just as easily have been Satan that Paul encountered, who Paul admits poses as a light being.)

The Bible tells us how to discern spirits of truth.

 

1Jn 4:1-3

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

 

The Old Testament doesn't support this.

Truth is to be based on the word and the law, not confessing that a man is from God and has the title of "Christ".

Jesus was never anointed king and the title of "Christ" in this case has little meaning.

 

centauri

Paul then contradicts the Old Testament by trying to undermine the law and replaces it with a new system revolving around faith in an illegal human sacrifice.

Paul was rank heretic but you have no problem with his blasphemy.

 

OC

You provided no scripture to back up the rest of your claims so I did not see much point in responding.

 

Paul was expounding on the doctrines as taught through out scripture including the Old Testament.

 

Act 17:2

And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

It was Paul that declared Jesus was the end of the law in Rom 10:4 and Col 2:14.

Where does the Old Testament confirm that a king messiah would do this?

 

 

As has been shown extensively, the Old Testament declares Christ the Messiah, which by definition means it would be extended with new revelation. I showed that relationship here. God Himself said that revelation existed in nature for example.

 

You're simply repeating yourself.

[centauri]

It is inspired of God if it's in the Bible. Prophecy, as in foretelling the details of the future, is a subset of what is contained in the Bible.

 

centauri

Then God inspires failures.

Rev 1:1-3

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

This uses the same sense of urgency that Peter applied in his prediction.

Neither prediction came true.

 

OC

Rev 1:1-3 are the same as Peter's words (which does show coherency within the Bible). They are not prophecy. Most of revelation is true prophecy, but these words are not prophecy. He did not know when it would happen, and Jesus told them to be on the "edge of their seats" as described in Mat 25.

You don't have to call these words prophetic if you don't want to, nor consider them to be official prophecy.

It's a prediction that was supposed to be accurate if it was inspired by God.

"things which must shortly come to pass"

 

Jesus then declared that he was coming soon, multiple times in the same book.

 

Context shows that Jesus was addressing his disciples privately, not the nation.

They asked Jesus for a sign, which he gives in verse 30.

 

OC

He did not have radio so He could not have been addressing the nation. It is perfectly reasonable to address a small group and refer to other groups while doing so.

Jesus was imparting information to his disciples that he didn't disclose to the public.

They were the audience and part of the generation that was to be impacted.

[centauri]

It's also illogical to conclude that traditions and mere claims make something true.

 

centauri

You have no problem relying on Paul, who was instructed by a shining light that claimed to be Jesus.

(It could just as easily have been Satan that Paul encountered, who Paul admits poses as a light being.)

 

OC

The Bible tells us how to discern spirits of truth.

 

1Jn 4:1-3

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

 

centauri

The Old Testament doesn't support this.

Truth is to be based on the word and the law, not confessing that a man is from God and has the title of "Christ".

Jesus was never anointed king and the title of "Christ" in this case has little meaning.

 

centauri

Paul then contradicts the Old Testament by trying to undermine the law and replaces it with a new system revolving around faith in an illegal human sacrifice.

Paul was rank heretic but you have no problem with his blasphemy.

 

OC

You provided no scripture to back up the rest of your claims so I did not see much point in responding.

 

Paul was expounding on the doctrines as taught through out scripture including the Old Testament.

 

Act 17:2

And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

 

 

centauri

It was Paul that declared Jesus was the end of the law in Rom 10:4 and Col 2:14.

Where does the Old Testament confirm that a king messiah would do this?

 

OC

As has been shown extensively, the Old Testament declares Christ the Messiah, which by definition means it would be extended with new revelation.

The Old Testament defines the stipulations for a king messiah and gives a basic job description, it does not validate Jesus by default.

That's your job, at least if you want to do more than simply make assertions without substance.

 

You haven't shown at all where God told his people in the Old Testament that a king messiah would end or alter the law.

That's what Paul claimed.

It's also a doctrinal bombshell.

The definition of a king messiah was accompanied by a job description.

It should be a relatively simple matter to confirm Paul's teaching with validation for that teaching from the Old Testament.

Christians are constantly bragging to me about all of the Old Testament proof texts that leave no doubt that the New Testament is of divine origin.

This is a golden opportunity for you to prove the amazing truth of Paul's revelations.

All you have to do is cite the passage or verse from the Old Testament that says a king messiah would end the law.

 

You're simply repeating yourself.

If you think the standard Christian claims are going to be accepted here without scrutiny, you're under a severe misconception about the nature of this forum.

Your default positions are not automatically true simply because you want them to be.

[OrdinaryClay]

You're simply repeating yourself.

If you think the standard Christian claims are going to be accepted here without scrutiny, you're under a severe misconception about the nature of this forum.

Your default positions are not automatically true simply because you want them to be.

That is why you repeat yourself? Your default positions are not automatically true because you say them over and over.

 

I don't think I'm under any misconception, and I think I understand the nature of the forum. I prefer people state their feelings openly and honestly. I genuinely want to hear why people leave Christianity.

[OrdinaryClay]

This is a golden opportunity for you to prove the amazing truth of Paul's revelations.

Prove? Opportunity for what? Maybe you are under a misconception.

 

If there were a text that said exactly what you wanted would you believe?

[mcdaddy]

I left because I grew a set, and decided to actually read the "other side's" reasoning and evidence against the claims of Christianity.

It was after about 6 months of reading many many books covering a wide range of judeo-Christian topics that I learned the history of religion on earth, the mixing and scrambling of different ancient religions to create new ones. The political reasons for the writing of certain books in the bible, the unknown authorship, there's a thousand reasons.

 

Death by a thousand paper cuts. Any real God would have written a story that wasn't so easy to rip to shreds logically and evidentiarily.

[OrdinaryClay]

I left because I grew a set, and decided to actually read the "other side's" reasoning and evidence against the claims of Christianity.

It was after about 6 months of reading many many books covering a wide range of judeo-Christian topics that I learned the history of religion on earth, the mixing and scrambling of different ancient religions to create new ones. The political reasons for the writing of certain books in the bible, the unknown authorship, there's a thousand reasons.

 

Death by a thousand paper cuts. Any real God would have written a story that wasn't so easy to rip to shreds logically and evidentiarily.

 

What books did you read?

[mymistake]

I left Christianity because of dishonest Christians like OrdinaryClay.

[Astreja]

If I may ask, what does your path offer after death?

 

Path? What path? To the best of My knowledge and belief, "I" cease to exist as a sentient being at the moment of death. And so do you, and so does everything that has ever lived. I simply do not believe that life after death (in the sense of Astreja or OrdinaryClay's awareness or personality living forever) is possible.

 

Our fate is to continue to be star stuff, and we shall have innumerable new gigs as our component atoms wander the earth and perhaps the universe. A thousand years from now, I may very well be part of a tree on the banks of the Amazon River, while other parts of Me explore the Himalayas as a cool autumn breeze.

 

The idea of eternal life in some primitive Middle Eastern god's paradise just doesn't do it for Me. I'd rather recognize that constant change is the one thing I can truly depend upon; discard all pretense of an eternal self; and savour the current moment in all its complexity and wonder.

[bornagainathiest]

OC, if it appears that Centauri is repeating himself, the fault lies not with him, but with your failure to properly address his points.

 

If person A continues in the belief that 2+2=5, what choice does person B have but to repeat themselves and keep on pointing out that 2+2 actually equals 4?

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

 

This is true. It does not guarantee anyone will choose to love God. This is where Molinism comes into play. God possesses foreknowledge of all possible worlds (not just the world we ended up with). This foreknowledge is called middle knowledge. This knowledge is the knowledge of what every created being would have freely chosen to do given any set of circumstances (these are called counter factuals). Given this unfathomable amount of knowledge He is able to choose an optimal world to actualize. I believe he has chosen the world in which an optional number of free willed agents freely choose to love Him.

 

Think of it as God having a choice in which world He will choose to create. One of those worlds may have been a world in which no one loved Him freely. He choose not to actualize that one. He choose the optimal.

 

Foreknowledge of P really does not imply that P cannot be otherwise. Suppose someone wrote a deterministic piece of software, and they told someone else every possible outcome the software would produce. It is not the knowledge of the outcomes that is driving the results. It is the code itself that is driving the outcomes. The knowledge of what the outcome will be is distinct from the mechanism that drives the outcomes.

 

God's eternal and indestrcutable nature fall from the fact that He is by the defintion the fisrt cause. Really, the only thing indestrucable is an axiomatic first cause.

 

Your last paragraph already implies absolute predestination. If God is the first cause of every effect, then he is the first cause of Joe Schmoe's unbelief. If he is not the first cause of every effect (doesn't matter how involved the chain of secondary causes), then you're introducing some other principle of ultimate causality into the universe. That move will undermine the axiomatic first cause - it won't do the work it is supposed to do in the explanatory system in which it is a premise.

 

I see that Centauri has anticipated most of what I would have said to these other points about predestination, so I will stop only to observe that no calvinistic type claims that logical entailment is the same as efficient causality. The mechanism is irrelevant in the deductive system to which I referred earlier, i.e. if x knows that P will occur, it cannot be the case that P will not occur.

[mcdaddy]

OC- just off the top of my head, I can think of only the titles of a few without looking at my library history. A history of God, the Evolution of God, the River of God, Jealous gods and chosen people, Discovering God, John Shelby Spong, Bart Ehrman, I could go on and on. I had serious questions in my early 20s but for about a decade only read apologetic type stuff, trying to calm my mind and reaffirm my beliefs. But eventually I hit a point where I wanted the truth no matter how ugly or unwelcome it was. I couldn't handle the contorted responses by apologists anymore. If " the faith" we're true, science would bear it out, as would the archaeological record. They didn't. God shouldn't need apologists.

 

Along with the fact I always knew, that OT bible god was nothing like NT bible god. And the horrible completely unjust barbaric concept of hell ( which is pagan in origin - not a "revelation") . Too many problems for xianity to overcome. It's a religion just like any other on earth. And truthsurge's videos really hit home too. The evidence against Christianity being literally true is overwhelming. I would have to be insane to believe anything that unrealistic and illogic anymore. It's like believing in Zeus. Bible stories aren't any more believable than Greek myth.

[agnosticator]

I prefer people state their feelings openly and honestly. I genuinely want to hear why people leave Christianity.

 

Reality eventually wore through the Big Lie held up by dishonest, convoluted arguments just like yours.

[Ouroboros]

Matter is required for the notion of cold or heat to be expressed. Matter is created. So "before everything" is a meaningless concept from the standpoint of heat

Agree.

 

. In the same sense volition is required for either good or evil. Before creation there were no created beings who could express a lack of good and hence be evil.

Hence God is neither evil nor good. Calling God good is like calling vacuum tasty.

[Ouroboros]

I left Christianity because of dishonest Christians like OrdinaryClay.

I consider his pretentious attitude to be more disturbing. But it's okay, I've grown used to asshats like him.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

 

This is true. It does not guarantee anyone will choose to love God. This is where Molinism comes into play. God possesses foreknowledge of all possible worlds (not just the world we ended up with). This foreknowledge is called middle knowledge. This knowledge is the knowledge of what every created being would have freely chosen to do given any set of circumstances (these are called counter factuals). Given this unfathomable amount of knowledge He is able to choose an optimal world to actualize. I believe he has chosen the world in which an optional number of free willed agents freely choose to love Him.

 

Think of it as God having a choice in which world He will choose to create. One of those worlds may have been a world in which no one loved Him freely. He choose not to actualize that one. He choose the optimal.

 

Foreknowledge of P really does not imply that P cannot be otherwise. Suppose someone wrote a deterministic piece of software, and they told someone else every possible outcome the software would produce. It is not the knowledge of the outcomes that is driving the results. It is the code itself that is driving the outcomes. The knowledge of what the outcome will be is distinct from the mechanism that drives the outcomes.

 

God's eternal and indestrcutable nature fall from the fact that He is by the defintion the fisrt cause. Really, the only thing indestrucable is an axiomatic first cause.

 

Your last paragraph already implies absolute predestination. If God is the first cause of every effect, then he is the first cause of Joe Schmoe's unbelief. If he is not the first cause of every effect (doesn't matter how involved the chain of secondary causes), then you're introducing some other principle of ultimate causality into the universe. That move will undermine the axiomatic first cause - it won't do the work it is supposed to do in the explanatory system in which it is a premise.

 

I see that Centauri has anticipated most of what I would have said to these other points about predestination, so I will stop only to observe that no calvinistic type claims that logical entailment is the same as efficient causality. The mechanism is irrelevant in the deductive system to which I referred earlier, i.e. if x knows that P will occur, it cannot be the case that P will not occur.

 

OK, here's fly-by attempt #2:

 

Suppose that God foresees all possible decisions by all future creatures and creates a world that will actualize those decisions that he selects. He is the first cause. Or is he? Under the counterfactual argument, God is following the prospective decisions of his creatures, whose wills are autonomous from his, when he selects which possible world to create. God then is not the first formal cause of the universe; he is one participant among many. Your attempt to "blow bubbles of autonomy", as it were, for creatures within God's will postulates spheres to which God has to react. The resulting picture is not the picture of a sovereign god and hence, is unbiblical.

 

Suppose anyway that God creates the one universe out of many possibilities, which will maximize the number of foreseen decisions by creatures that he wants. Once he sets the mechanism in motion, the universe unfolds, determining by a chain of efficient causes all the decisions. At any moment, then, no creature can make a decision other than the decision that is determined by the chain. the creature's "free will" actually is only notional; at no point in created time can a decision "go either way."

[Ouroboros]

Your last paragraph already implies absolute predestination. If God is the first cause of every effect, then he is the first cause of Joe Schmoe's unbelief. If he is not the first cause of every effect (doesn't matter how involved the chain of secondary causes), then you're introducing some other principle of ultimate causality into the universe. That move will undermine the axiomatic first cause - it won't do the work it is supposed to do in the explanatory system in which it is a premise.

Hear, hear. I've been trying to argue exactly the same point for years. Glad to see someone else do it.

[bdp]

I prefer people state their feelings openly and honestly. I genuinely want to hear why people leave Christianity.

 

 

Because it isn't true. Any other questions?

[bdp]

 

 

. In the same sense volition is required for either good or evil.

 

'good' and 'evil' are just arbitrary concepts.

[bdp]

 

If I may ask, what does your path offer after death?

 

There is no 'after death.' Death is a natural conclusion.

[bdp]

 

 

You're simply repeating yourself.

 

*cough cough*