# Why doesn't god prevent bad things from happening?



## grizzlyblake

I would like to hear some straight forward answers to this one. 

Let's assume that god is both omnipotent and omniscient. Let's also assume that his love is unconditional. (Ideas pulled from the Bible)

Now, we are all aware that the world is full of horrible things, with innocent people being killed daily, children suffering, families starving, stabbings, shootings, rapes, the list goes on and on. Based on the arguments I've seen on here that Christianity is the majority belief in the world, let's say that 60% of the people involved in these horrible events are Christians. (Just a guess)

My question is: Why does god not prevent these things from happening to people? If his love is unconditional it should cover everyone, but if he only loves his worshipers the 60% should be protected at the least. 

Here are the choices to explain this:

A) God is omniscient and omnipotent, but is not caring enough to step in and prevent these things from happening to his followers.

B) God does care enough to protect his followers, but is not omniscient or omnipotent, and therefore not a god after all.


Before anyone starts screaming that I'm just pot-stirring I'll bear my feelings here and say that this issue is the number one reason that I no longer believe in god. Therefore this is a very serious question that I have and as of yet I have not found an answer that actually addresses the two options.


----------



## rjcruiser

grizzlyblake said:


> I would like to hear some straight forward answers to this one.
> 
> Let's assume that god is both omnipotent and omniscient. Let's also assume that his love is unconditional. (Ideas pulled from the Bible)
> 
> Now, we are all aware that the world is full of horrible things, with innocent people being killed daily, children suffering, families starving, stabbings, shootings, rapes, the list goes on and on. Based on the arguments I've seen on here that Christianity is the majority belief in the world, let's say that 60% of the people involved in these horrible events are Christians. (Just a guess)
> 
> My question is: Why does god not prevent these things from happening to people? If his love is unconditional it should cover everyone, but if he only loves his worshipers the 60% should be protected at the least.
> 
> Here are the choices to explain this:
> 
> A) God is omniscient and omnipotent, but is not caring enough to step in and prevent these things from happening to his followers.
> 
> B) God does care enough to protect his followers, but is not omniscient or omnipotent, and therefore not a god after all.
> 
> 
> Before anyone starts screaming that I'm just pot-stirring I'll bear my feelings here and say that this issue is the number one reason that I no longer believe in god. Therefore this is a very serious question that I have and as of yet I have not found an answer that actually addresses the two options.




My answer is this.

Read the book of Job and read the book of James.  Two books in the Bible (one from the OT, one from the NT).

I believe it will answer your questions.  If you still have more questions after reading these two books, then let me know and I'd be happy to explain more.


----------



## Ronnie T

Several reasons come to mind.  All of them backed up by scripture.
But I know you don't want to hear scripture, so I'll say it in my own words.

Adam and Eve suffered none of what humans suffer today.
But then they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The way they thought and life around them changed with that sin.
We are living the repercussions of that sin.

Also, our relationship with God is based upon faith.
Faith in Jesus Christ for one thing.
But also faith in God who will bring us through all kinds of suffering.
People go dumb stuff, God carries us through, we grow in faith.

Third, and most important.
I don't have the ability to understand everything to happens in mine and other people's lives.
Why did a certain thing happen........... I don't know!
But it happened and I need to deal with it.

Those aren't very good explanations, but that's about as good as it'll get.


----------



## grizzlyblake

I don't know where a Bible is right off hand. I own tons of books that are in tons of boxes and I'm sure I have several in there somewhere. I know for a fact my Bible from middle and high school (Catholic school) is in there somewhere, but I don't see me hunting for it.

Could someone provide an abstract of the explanation from there?


----------



## rjcruiser

grizzlyblake said:


> Before anyone starts screaming that I'm just pot-stirring I'll bear my feelings here and say that this issue is the number one reason that I no longer believe in god. Therefore this is a very serious question that I have and as of yet I have not found an answer that actually addresses the two options.



You point out in your op that this is a "very serious question" and then you post this.



grizzlyblake said:


> I don't know where a Bible is right off hand. I own tons of books that are in tons of boxes and I'm sure I have several in there somewhere. I know for a fact my Bible from middle and high school (Catholic school) is in there somewhere, but I don't see me hunting for it.
> 
> Could someone provide an abstract of the explanation from there?



Are you not willing to do a little work for a "serious question?"

Forgive me, but the lack of desire for a true answer makes me question your motives.

www.biblegateway.com


----------



## holler tree

the one thing I can think of is that he is going to put an end to it when he returns. that might not be a good enough answer for you or alot of other people on here but it is for me and my family. I have seen miracles happen to people around me that could only come from God and who am I to doubt his wisdom or his reason. I prefer to thank him for the blessings we recieve and continue on with life untill the day of death or his arrival which ever comes first. I do hope you find the answer that you seek and it gives you reason to clean the dust off those bibles.


----------



## grizzlyblake

rj, I'm not saying I won't do a little work for some answers. Believe me, I have done a lot of searching, reading, talking to church officials, etc. I was hoping to have a person explain it to me, since sometimes that's a much better way to understand something this complicated.


----------



## rjcruiser

grizzlyblake said:


> rj, I'm not saying I won't do a little work for some answers. Believe me, I have done a lot of searching, reading, talking to church officials, etc. I was hoping to have a person explain it to me, since sometimes that's a much better way to understand something this complicated.



gotcha.  I'll accept that.

I would encourage you to read those two books as much within them answers your questions.

I'll ask you this.

Why does a person exercise?  Why do they put their body's through pain and suffering when being on the couch is so much more comfortable?


----------



## grizzlyblake

rjcruiser said:


> I'll ask you this.
> 
> Why does a person exercise?  Why do they put their body's through pain and suffering when being on the couch is so much more comfortable?



You know, that's definitely a very thought provoking question that made me genuinely pause and go "hmmm" while scratching my head.

So you're implying that the pain, torture, and suffering that some go through are sort of a "work out" for the soul? Why though? What's the end result?


----------



## gtparts

I would point out that you gave three assumptions in your opening. If we operate from those premises then A is incorrect and B is incorrect also. What this means is that you didn't list all the possible conclusions. 

If we agree that, by definition, God is omniscient and omnipotent, then the only question is whether He can love unconditionally and allow bad things to happen. 

Not to belabor the point, but the answer is this: Yes, He can. His nature can do no other. 

The problem is SIN. Bad things happen because of sin. There are consequences of being disobedient to God. Those consequences extend to the entire of His creation; thorns and sunburns, old age and death, car accidents and cancers, divorces and birth defects, bee stings and H1N1, betrayals and thefts, toothaches and ingrown toenails.

Mankind and the world suffers because we, by way of Adam and Eve, caused corruption to enter this physical world. It is our doing!

Gods character is love. He is love. He is also holy. He is also righteous. He is also just. He is also possessive (jealous). The sovereign God is all this and more at the same time. He does not switch back and forth like a man changing hats. 

His solution to our problem (our voluntary separation from His presence) was to provide a way to be redeemed (reconciled) to him.
That way is Jesus. 

Now, that's love!


You have surely heard the rest of the story.

It might be helpful to read _ C. S. Lewis's Case for Christ _ by Art Lindsey ISBN0-8308-3285-8. It answers your questions and others in a simple, easy to read, style. You may find yourself drawn to read some of Lewis's works, such as _A Grief Observed_.

I would also recommend _The Case for Christ_ by Lee Strobel and _More Than A Carpenter_ by Josh McDowell.

May God give you His grace and peace.


----------



## johnnylightnin

The OP is full of terms that need to be defined.  What do you mean by unconditionally?  You said that this unconditional love should cover everyone.  What does that mean?  In the Bible, it is very clear that those who don't accept Christ will be punished eternally...does that inform your view of "unconditional" as it refers to love?

Have you ever had something bad happen to you that ended up being better than what you had planned?  That's what happened to Joseph when his brothers made a very evil decision and sold him into slavery.  Joseph says that his brothers meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.

This question comes down to God not doing what fallible humans claim they would do if they had the power God has.  We've got to understand that the idea of God as a super powerful human is a terrible model and it's not close to biblical.

I've got a daughter and she wants to hold everything she sees.  Yesterday she tried to eat a dead roach at my office.  I took it away from her and she screamed bloody murder.  She thinks some great evil has been done to her because she can't comprehend that my way is better than her way.  She won't be able to comprehend that for a LONG time.  The same is true with God.  I know you think that there is needless evil in the world, but I don't see that as a biblical statement.

" 28And we know that [a]God causes (A)all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are (B)called according to His purpose."

That's Romans 8:28.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

In all things give God thanks!

That means good and bad.

DB BB


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> So you're implying that the pain, torture, and suffering that some go through are sort of a "work out" for the soul? Why though? What's the end result?



From Romans 5:

 1(A) Therefore, since we have been justified by faith,(B) we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2Through him we have also(C) obtained access by faith* into this grace(D) in which we stand, and(E) we[c] rejoice[d] in hope of the glory of God. 3More than that, we(F) rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering(G) produces endurance, 4and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5and(H) hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love(I) has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.*


----------



## Inthegarge

I think the answer is simple. God has never caused these things to happen but he doesn't want men to be robots. He wants mankind to follow Him willing in the good and the bad. All bad things are the result of Sin and our Sinful nature. Those who continue on the path to be like Jesus, sin less and less as time goes on and are less harmful to others. The others continue to do things that are negative (or bad) to/or effecting other people. Take Bernie Madoff, many say his was a "victimless" crime since it was only money. But considering that everything we do effects at least 20 others people there are no real "victimless" crimes. Hope this helps.....RW


----------



## Roberson

johnnylightnin said:


> The OP is full of terms that need to be defined.  What do you mean by unconditionally?  You said that this unconditional love should cover everyone.  What does that mean?  In the Bible, it is very clear that those who don't accept Christ will be punished eternally...does that inform your view of "unconditional" as it refers to love?
> 
> Have you ever had something bad happen to you that ended up being better than what you had planned?  That's what happened to Joseph when his brothers made a very evil decision and sold him into slavery.  Joseph says that his brothers meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.
> 
> This question comes down to God not doing what fallible humans claim they would do if they had the power God has.  We've got to understand that the idea of God as a super powerful human is a terrible model and it's not close to biblical.
> 
> I've got a daughter and she wants to hold everything she sees.  Yesterday she tried to eat a dead roach at my office.  I took it away from her and she screamed bloody murder.  She thinks some great evil has been done to her because she can't comprehend that my way is better than her way.  She won't be able to comprehend that for a LONG time.  The same is true with God.  I know you think that there is needless evil in the world, but I don't see that as a biblical statement.
> 
> " 28And we know that [a]God causes (A)all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are (B)called according to His purpose."
> 
> That's Romans 8:28.


That's good stuff, johnnylightnin'.


----------



## rjcruiser

grizzlyblake said:


> You know, that's definitely a very thought provoking question that made me genuinely pause and go "hmmm" while scratching my head.
> 
> So you're implying that the pain, torture, and suffering that some go through are sort of a "work out" for the soul? Why though? What's the end result?



Why does one workout?  Why does one exercise?  So that they are physically healthy.

So, what do trials and tribulations...aka hard times accomplish? The same thing, only on a spiritual level.




johnnylightnin said:


> From Romans 5:
> 
> 3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,
> 
> 4  and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,
> 
> 5  and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.



Perfect Scripture reference.  Thanks JL

Also, from James 1

2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, 

 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 

 4 And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.


----------



## Paymaster

Why doesn't God prevent bad things from happening? 



He has reserved that for Heaven.


----------



## gordon 2

grizzlyblake said:


> I would like to hear some straight forward answers to this one.
> 
> Let's assume that god is both omnipotent and omniscient. Let's also assume that his love is unconditional. (Ideas pulled from the Bible)
> 
> Now, we are all aware that the world is full of horrible things, with innocent people being killed daily, children suffering, families starving, stabbings, shootings, rapes, the list goes on and on. Based on the arguments I've seen on here that Christianity is the majority belief in the world, let's say that 60% of the people involved in these horrible events are Christians. (Just a guess)
> 
> My question is: Why does god not prevent these things from happening to people? If his love is unconditional it should cover everyone, but if he only loves his worshipers the 60% should be protected at the least.
> 
> Here are the choices to explain this:
> 
> A) God is omniscient and omnipotent, but is not caring enough to step in and prevent these things from happening to his followers.
> 
> B) God does care enough to protect his followers, but is not omniscient or omnipotent, and therefore not a god after all.
> 
> 
> Before anyone starts screaming that I'm just pot-stirring I'll bear my feelings here and say that this issue is the number one reason that I no longer believe in god. Therefore this is a very serious question that I have and as of yet I have not found an answer that actually addresses the two options.





Many instances God does intervene and His love is conditional or at least patient, however the interventions don't generally make for good sensational six oclock news according to the editors...

We chose

suffering and it is relative. What is the difference between a tsunami and a heart attack or a stroke?

I am always surprised by people who say that it is not fair when they are told they have terminal  lung cancer when  they have been smoking 1.5 packs a day for 40 yrs!!!!!!!

I am always surprized when I hear it said of an enemy, "What do they have against us?"


----------



## TDBone

Good question. 

My response won't cover everything you are looking for but I do believe it to be relevant to the topic. 

I think one of the problem we, as humans, have when approaching a question like this is that we are not God and because of that we have no clue why things happen the way they do in this life. While trying to 'figure out' why bad things happen we tend to take God 'out of the box' and 'humanize' Him and our 'here and now' perspective throws a wrench into the whole thing. We can't see the entire canvas God paints on and we often don't immediately see His plan and purpose for what happens in life, so we're left with our emotionally driven minds that lead us to question and doubt how or why bad things happen to good people. But, I know and trust that God has a plan in all things ... to bring Himself glory and to redeem many.

Take Jesus being crucified on the cross as one of the greatest examples of bad things happening to good people. Without knowing what was going to come from His crucifixion, those who doubted God's sovereignty in all things were probably sitting around saying ... "Where's your God now?", "If your God was a loving God why wouldn't He save His 'sons' life?", etc. Even more, those who were 'on the fence' or those who actually believed could be tempted to question (As we so often do now) why God would allow something so bad to happen to someone so good (Jesus), why does God allow this suffering, etc. In the moment we can't always see God's plan and we can't understand what just happened...but let the example above show that although we don't always know the reasons, God is always working things out for His good and for the good of those who love Him...because through this horrific death He brought forgiveness, life, hope and salvation to all who believe in His Son. 

Thankfully, THANKFULLY, God didn't prevent this 'bad' and horrible (Certainly the way we would have looked at the situation if we were witnessing it.) thing from happening. 

I am sure my words above aren't perfectly put together and maybe the thoughts in my heart didn't translate so clearly in my writing. 

I would like to suggest that you take some time and watch this two part series by Louie Giglio called, "Hope: When Life Hurts The Most". It beautifully explains and portrays, in my opinion, the answer you are looking for. 

Part 1: The Anchor of Hope

http://www2.northpointministries.org/player/player_old.jsp?occurrenceID=2197

Part 2: The Megaphone of Hope

http://www2.northpointministries.org/player/player_old.jsp?occurrenceID=2198

As I said in the beginning, I feel there is much more in your question that can be analyzed and discussed, like: Define a 'good person', what makes someone a 'good person' in God's eye's, 'the wages of sin is death', the broken world we live in because of original sin, where would we be if we were able to 'play God', without Jesus' sacrifice what DO our actions on earth deserve, etc. But, I just wanted to touch on the stuff that I wrote above.


----------



## earl

grizzlyblake said:


> I would like to hear some straight forward answers to this one.
> 
> Let's assume that god is both omnipotent and omniscient. Let's also assume that his love is unconditional. (Ideas pulled from the Bible)
> 
> Now, we are all aware that the world is full of horrible things, with innocent people being killed daily, children suffering, families starving, stabbings, shootings, rapes, the list goes on and on. Based on the arguments I've seen on here that Christianity is the majority belief in the world, let's say that 60% of the people involved in these horrible events are Christians. (Just a guess)
> 
> My question is: Why does god not prevent these things from happening to people? If his love is unconditional it should cover everyone, but if he only loves his worshipers the 60% should be protected at the least.
> 
> Here are the choices to explain this:
> 
> A) God is omniscient and omnipotent, but is not caring enough to step in and prevent these things from happening to his followers.
> 
> B) God does care enough to protect his followers, but is not omniscient or omnipotent, and therefore not a god after all.
> 
> 
> Before anyone starts screaming that I'm just pot-stirring I'll bear my feelings here and say that this issue is the number one reason that I no longer believe in god. Therefore this is a very serious question that I have and as of yet I have not found an answer that actually addresses the two options.





At the end of all the Christian answers add this. Their God for whatever reason does not ,or can not, or will not interfere in the affairs of man. Notice all the things they claim God can do. Cure diseases ,money matters ,marital troubles, and on and on. Ask about the suffering of children and you get all the Adam and Eve sinned stories. Bottom line for me is , Christians use the thought of God to get them through the night or day . Whichever they have problems facing. I have come to pretty much the same conclusion as you obviously have. The God in the bible is a fable. He is all love or all wrath. He is life and he is death. In truth He is ambiguous enough so He can be what ever you need at any particular moment. 
You are on your own with all the suffering in the world question. God is not the answer or the cure. It's just life.


----------



## Ronnie T

earl said:


> At the end of all the Christian answers add this. Their God for whatever reason does not ,or can not, or will not interfere in the affairs of man. Notice all the things they claim God can do. Cure diseases ,money matters ,marital troubles, and on and on. Ask about the suffering of children and you get all the Adam and Eve sinned stories. Bottom line for me is , Christians use the thought of God to get them through the night or day . Whichever they have problems facing. I have come to pretty much the same conclusion as you obviously have. The God in the bible is a fable. He is all love or all wrath. He is life and he is death. In truth He is ambiguous enough so He can be what ever you need at any particular moment.
> You are on your own with all the suffering in the world question. God is not the answer or the cure. It's just life.



The truth earl, is that none of us, including you, aren't smart enough to describe how God works and interacts with the world.


----------



## earl

Ronnie T said:


> The truth earl, is that none of us, including you, aren't smart enough to describe how God works and interacts with the world.





Hold on just a minute . What about all the things the bible tells us?
Let's start with Psalms. 
Yea though I walk through thevalley...

Is that not a promise ?

I shall fear no evil...

I know that's only one chapter out of one book out of one testament, But shouldn't I be able to take that to heart as part of my salvation ?

How about  Suffer not the little children...

What did I miss ?


----------



## gordon 2

earl said:


> At the end of all the Christian answers add this. Their God for whatever reason does not ,or can not, or will not interfere in the affairs of man. Notice all the things they claim God can do. Cure diseases ,money matters ,marital troubles, and on and on. Ask about the suffering of children and you get all the Adam and Eve sinned stories. Bottom line for me is , Christians use the thought of God to get them through the night or day . Whichever they have problems facing. I have come to pretty much the same conclusion as you obviously have. The God in the bible is a fable. He is all love or all wrath. He is life and he is death. In truth He is ambiguous enough so He can be what ever you need at any particular moment.
> You are on your own with all the suffering in the world question. God is not the answer or the cure. It's just life.





Children suffer from colic up to pregnancy and beyond. Natural as the weather. "Pain is weakness leaving the body."quote Dixie USMC.

Earl, God does cure diseases, help with money matters, marital problems etc..etc...

First off you need to know what diseases are and what causes them or how to live with physical and mental health .  And, oxygen is caustic. It takes the iron in your blood and rusts it to feed your pancreas, brain, tongue and other sundry organs. Organs ware out as time passes. One little bug in the circulatory system can reck the rythms of your lungs, brian, and bowels... Like trees some people fall from the top down, other down up. etc.... 

I think the Mormons as an example have a lot to teach us about the subject of health.

Money matters? Rabbi Bujetman perhaps? Scotish presbyterians...perhaps etc.

Marital problems? Gordon 2. " Many hunters get their bucks during the rut.  Not because they are especially gifted hunters, but because rutting bucks are stupid. Grooms be aware."


----------



## gtparts

earl said:


> Hold on just a minute . What about all the things the bible tells us?
> Let's start with Psalms.
> Yea though I walk through thevalley...
> 
> Is that not a promise ?
> 
> I shall fear no evil...
> 
> I know that's only one chapter out of one book out of one testament, But shouldn't I be able to take that to heart as part of my salvation ?
> 
> 
> 
> How about  Suffer not the little children...
> 
> What did I miss ?



What did you miss? Well, for one thing the 23rd Psalm was written by King David (in the 1st person). He was testifying to the nature of God from his personal experience and praising Him. David was not making you or anyone else a promise. He was confessing his dependence on God for all the good in his life.

No wonder you have a difficult time understanding the true nature of God and Christianity. It is obvious you have spent a great deal of your life somewhere other than in the Word of God. Do you also pick out the worst examples of behavior in people you believe to be Christians for your understanding of what being a follower of Christ is?


And, yes, if you are saved, you will have the same experience that David had.

As for: Matthew 19:14 (King James Version)

 14But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

The KJV leaves something to be desired in understanding such an old translation that uses terms which we do not use in the present day. Back in the day, "suffer" meant to "encourage", "urge", "entreat", "permit".

Perhaps the NLT would be easier.

Matthew 19:14 (New Living Translation)

 14 But Jesus said, “Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to those who are like these children.”


----------



## grizzlyblake

Earl, you hit the nail on the head. It seems to me that there are a plethora of answers to explain how god is doing the right thing for you at any given point in your life, even if things are really bad.

TDBone, thanks for the links, I haven't had a chance to watch the videos yet, but I noticed they were to North Point. I used to go to 722 there back in the day and saw Louie Giglio a time or two. I'll check the videos out.

The question that seems to be lurking in my mind is - why? What point is there to putting people through pain and suffering just to make things better down the road? If god is all powerful, why not just skip the bad and get right to the good?


----------



## gtparts

grizzlyblake said:


> Earl, you hit the nail on the head. It seems to me that there are a plethora of answers to explain how god is doing the right thing for you at any given point in your life, even if things are really bad.
> 
> TDBone, thanks for the links, I haven't had a chance to watch the videos yet, but I noticed they were to North Point. I used to go to 722 there back in the day and saw Louie Giglio a time or two. I'll check the videos out.
> 
> The question that seems to be lurking in my mind is - why? What point is there to putting people through pain and suffering just to make things better down the road? If god is all powerful, why not just skip the bad and get right to the good?



We don't merit the good, grizz. We all deserve much worse than this life has to offer.... and some will receive just that. When you realize the evil in this world is our fault, maybe you will quit whining about a little hardship from time to time. Do you really have a problem with not receiving the punishment you rightfully deserve in this life? All things considered, you have it pretty good until the moment you give up your last breath. The rest depends on what you did with Jesus.


----------



## Double Barrel BB

grizzlyblake said:


> The question that seems to be lurking in my mind is - why? What point is there to putting people through pain and suffering just to make things better down the road? If god is all powerful, why not just skip the bad and get right to the good?


 
Not everything has an answer... not everything that is bad that happens in our lives has an answer... not everything that is good has an answer either...

God's ways are not our ways...

DB BB


----------



## BeenHuntn

God has stopped satan from killin you for your whole life... hmm, God doesn't prevent bad things from happening?

if everybody would just study their Bible it would be amazing where the world would be right now..


----------



## The Original Rooster

grizzlyblake said:


> Earl, you hit the nail on the head. It seems to me that there are a plethora of answers to explain how god is doing the right thing for you at any given point in your life, even if things are really bad.
> 
> TDBone, thanks for the links, I haven't had a chance to watch the videos yet, but I noticed they were to North Point. I used to go to 722 there back in the day and saw Louie Giglio a time or two. I'll check the videos out.
> 
> The question that seems to be lurking in my mind is - why? What point is there to putting people through pain and suffering just to make things better down the road? If god is all powerful, why not just skip the bad and get right to the good?



Would we appreciate the good as much if we hadn't experienced the bad?


----------



## gordon 2

grizzlyblake said:


> Earl, you hit the nail on the head. It seems to me that there are a plethora of answers to explain how god is doing the right thing for you at any given point in your life, even if things are really bad.
> 
> TDBone, thanks for the links, I haven't had a chance to watch the videos yet, but I noticed they were to North Point. I used to go to 722 there back in the day and saw Louie Giglio a time or two. I'll check the videos out.
> 
> The question that seems to be lurking in my mind is - why? What point is there to putting people through pain and suffering just to make things better down the road? If god is all powerful, why not just skip the bad and get right to the good?



Your question would do well addressed to a buddhist.
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html


----------



## earl

gordon 2 said:


> Children suffer from colic up to pregnancy and beyond. Natural as the weather. "Pain is weakness leaving the body."quote Dixie USMC.
> 
> Earl, God does cure diseases, help with money matters, marital problems etc..etc...
> 
> First off you need to know what diseases are and what causes them or how to live with physical and mental health .  And, oxygen is caustic. It takes the iron in your blood and rusts it to feed your pancreas, brain, tongue and other sundry organs. Organs ware out as time passes. One little bug in the circulatory system can reck the rythms of your lungs, brian, and bowels... Like trees some people fall from the top down, other down up. etc....
> 
> I think the Mormons as an example have a lot to teach us about the subject of health.
> 
> Money matters? Rabbi Bujetman perhaps? Scotish presbyterians...perhaps etc.
> 
> Marital problems? Gordon 2. " Many hunters get their bucks during the rut.  Not because they are especially gifted hunters, but because rutting bucks are stupid. Grooms be aware."



God does not cure. If He did all Christians would be healthy,wealthy and have no marital problems.  Either that or God ignores some Christian's prayers. Or do you have to have so many good works to your credit first ?


----------



## grizzlyblake

gordon 2 said:


> Your question would do well addressed to a buddhist.
> http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html



Ok, I understand that it's supposed to make things better if you suffer and then overcome your pain. What I don't understand is why this is necessary. I don't make my dogs stay out in a winter rain just so they appreciate it more when I let them in the house. I pretty much love them unconditionally so I do everything in my power to make sure they're happy and comfortable. I see nothing to be gained by testing them or making them deal with pain so that they appreciate the good.


----------



## earl

gtparts said:


> What did you miss? Well, for one thing the 23rd Psalm was written by King David (in the 1st person). He was testifying to the nature of God from his personal experience and praising Him. David was not making you or anyone else a promise. He was confessing his dependence on God for all the good in his life.
> 
> No wonder you have a difficult time understanding the true nature of God and Christianity. It is obvious you have spent a great deal of your life somewhere other than in the Word of God. Do you also pick out the worst examples of behavior in people you believe to be Christians for your understanding of what being a follower of Christ is?
> 
> 
> And, yes, if you are saved, you will have the same experience that David had.
> 
> As for: Matthew 19:14 (King James Version)
> 
> 14But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> The KJV leaves something to be desired in understanding such an old translation that uses terms which we do not use in the present day. Back in the day, "suffer" meant to "encourage", "urge", "entreat", "permit".
> 
> Perhaps the NLT would be easier.
> 
> Matthew 19:14 (New Living Translation)
> 
> 14 But Jesus said, “Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to those who are like these children.”





The problem I have with that explanation is this. The bible is God's inspired word is it not ? Should John 3:16 be taken as John's thoughts on God and not something for me? If I can not take any verse in any book in the bible and apply it directly to my life , it has no meaning for me so it cannot be God's inspired words  for me.

Once again we have the translation problem. Ain't it funny how when somebody other than a Christian uses a verse ,it becomes a translation problem. No wonder there is such a hard time spreading the Word.

gt ,I spent the majority of my youth being taught and indoctrinated into God's Word. I was taught from the bible from day one. If the church doors were open or if there was a revival, tent meeting, or anything else involving God's word ,you can rest assured that I was there unless I was deathly ill or in the hospital. 
Of course being that involved ,I also got to see the underbelly of the beast too. It ain't pretty.
It's been said in another post something to the effect of you can't have the good if you don't have the bad. Some times the bad overwhelms the good. Or to put it another way there isn't enough good to overcome the bad.


----------



## Ronnie T

earl said:


> Hold on just a minute . What about all the things the bible tells us?
> Let's start with Psalms.
> Yea though I walk through thevalley...
> 
> Is that not a promise ?
> 
> I shall fear no evil...
> 
> I know that's only one chapter out of one book out of one testament, But shouldn't I be able to take that to heart as part of my salvation ?
> 
> How about  Suffer not the little children...
> 
> What did I miss ?




This is a waste.
You simply are unable to understand spiritual things.
Bye.


----------



## earl

Double Barrel BB said:


> Not everything has an answer... not everything that is bad that happens in our lives has an answer... not everything that is good has an answer either...
> 
> God's ways are not our ways...
> 
> DB BB





Now just say that every 11.6 seconds.


----------



## The Original Rooster

grizzlyblake said:


> Ok, I understand that it's supposed to make things better if you suffer and then overcome your pain. What I don't understand is why this is necessary. I don't make my dogs stay out in a winter rain just so they appreciate it more when I let them in the house. I pretty much love them unconditionally so I do everything in my power to make sure they're happy and comfortable. I see nothing to be gained by testing them or making them deal with pain so that they appreciate the good.



Dogs are different. I spoil mine too. 
If you've spent any time around a spoiled child, it's easy to see why God doesn't spoil us. Nobody could stand to be around any of us.


----------



## earl

gtparts said:


> We don't merit the good, grizz. We all deserve much worse than this life has to offer.... and some will receive just that. When you realize the evil in this world is our fault, maybe you will quit whining about a little hardship from time to time. Do you really have a problem with not receiving the punishment you rightfully deserve in this life? All things considered, you have it pretty good until the moment you give up your last breath. The rest depends on what you did with Jesus.



The old adage ''we are not worthy''  Take your post and tell that to kids every day of their life. Guess what you get ?A damaged adult that has no self worth or self respect. If you have that much disregard for life ,please end it . If you turn to God out of guilt or fear ,you have turned for the wrong reason. If God can not bring you peace in your life ,you definitely need to change dieties. How terrible it must be to wake up every day and think '' I am unworthy. I deserve the worst punishment imaginable. I will be like this for the rest of my miserable life. Even though Jesus died to remove all my sins ,I am no good.''

If some one were to berate a person with that adage and left out the God part ,they would be guilty of verbal terrorism. Check battered child and women shelters and ask what they have in common with the fire and brimstone mentality.


----------



## grizzlyblake

RoosterTodd said:


> Dogs are different. I spoil mine too.
> If you've spent any time around a spoiled child, it's easy to see why God doesn't spoil us. Nobody could stand to be around any of us.



Todd, that's another legitimate "hmmm" post for me.


----------



## JBinkley

While I may not be the best person to answer your question, I can relate my personal experience. About a year and a half ago, I became so enthralled with how I was going to pay bills, property taxes, and Christmas gifts for my kids and my wife that I had forgotten the Ultimate Gift. I feel that my suffering through lack of money was God's way of letting me know that "Hey, I'm still in control". Once I figured out that He's in control, I realized all of the blessings that I have. The burden of paying property taxes became a blessing that I had property to pay taxes on. The burden of buying Christmas gifts for 3 kids and wife became a blessing that I had 3 healthy kids and a wonderful wife. I feel that God put me though this to remind me what was important. My family had gotten a long way from the second most important thing in my life.  These may seem insignificant to some but, I was almost to the point of depression. He controls everything even the stock market. Hmmmm, I wonder how many lives have been turned to Christ with the recent downturn in the economy?


----------



## The Original Rooster

grizzlyblake said:


> Todd, that's another legitimate "hmmm" post for me.



Do you mean "Hmmm, something to think about", or "Hmmm, something smells funny about that post"?


----------



## grizzlyblake

No, generally my replies pop right into my head when I read the last post, but every now and then I'll get one that makes me stop and think "well, that's actually a good point." Then I have to really think to come up with a reply. Those are the ones I like the best!


----------



## earl

Ronnie T said:


> This is a waste.
> You simply are unable to understand spiritual things.
> Bye.



Why leave ? If spiritual things are that difficult to understand OR explain ,then I would say that is not God's word you are trying to discuss. 
Can you honestly take that stance and then talk about leading children to Christ ? How about young adults with little life experience  ? How about the savages in third world countries that you send missionaries to ? Shoot ,how about some ignorant redneck on a fishing and hunting forum ?

You lead a congregation ,if I read you correctly , and you can't explain spiritual things to where they aren't some mysterious hocus pocus ? Your congregation must be extraordinary elite.


----------



## crackerdave

Sometimes God _does_ prevent bad things from happening.He kept me from killing myself with alcohol and malnutrition,although I went through some real bad time for 15 years - homeless,drunk,and hungry most of those years.He let me survive that just so I could tell folks like yourself that He _is_ a good and caring God,but we have to do our part,or suffer the consequences - which may or may not mean death - depending on whether He thinks you might be of some use to somebody who's fixin' to head down the same bad road you've been down.


----------



## gtparts

earl said:


> God does not cure. If He did all Christians would be healthy,wealthy and have no marital problems.  Either that or God ignores some Christian's prayers. Or do you have to have so many good works to your credit first ?



God is not obligated to grant our (those who are Christians) every wish. He is not a genie. Jinn or genies are Muslim concepts. God responds according to His will. What He has promised, He will keep. He does not ignore the cries of His children. A Christian can expect God to respond in several ways: "Yes", "No", and "Not now". It is also possible and frequently happens that He does not inform us of His response, He just acts, when and how He chooses. What status does anyone hold that would obligate God to keep them informed on all that He wills to do? Does the rug instruct the weaver as to the pattern he should employ? Does the clay dictate to the potter the shape and size it is to have? Or the use for which it is created?

One minute you preach logic and the next you are drawing your own spurious conclusions to suit the argument you are trying to make.  Christians in this life are subject to the same consequences of coming in contact with H1N1 as non-Christians. Generally, we get no special treatment, though sometimes, by God's grace, we are spared some experiences. God is just as likely to cure a non-Christian if it accomplishes His will.

God is a rewarder of those who are are faithful, in His way, in His time. Good works count. God has prepared good things for us to do. They just don't have an effect on salvation. Salvation is by faith alone.


----------



## earl

JBinkley said:


> While I may not be the best person to answer your question, I can relate my personal experience. About a year and a half ago, I became so enthralled with how I was going to pay bills, property taxes, and Christmas gifts for my kids and my wife that I had forgotten the Ultimate Gift. I feel that my suffering through lack of money was God's way of letting me know that "Hey, I'm still in control". Once I figured out that He's in control, I realized all of the blessings that I have. The burden of paying property taxes became a blessing that I had property to pay taxes on. The burden of buying Christmas gifts for 3 kids and wife became a blessing that I had 3 healthy kids and a wonderful wife. I feel that God put me though this to remind me what was important. My family had gotten a long way from the second most important thing in my life.  These may seem insignificant to some but, I was almost to the point of depression. He controls everything even the stock market. Hmmmm, I wonder how many lives have been turned to Christ with the recent downturn in the economy?



Do you think they may be turning to God for the wrong reason ? Or is any reason a good reason ? I would be willing to bet that some of those saved out of desparate times will go back to their old ways when things get better. Yes ,I know ,they weren;t really saved to start with.:


----------



## earl

crackerdave said:


> Sometimes God _does_ prevent bad things from happening.He kept me from killing myself with alcohol and malnutrition,although I went through some real bad time for 15 years - homeless,drunk,and hungry most of those years.He let me survive that just so I could tell folks like yourself that He _is_ a good and caring God,but we have to do our part,or suffer the consequences - which may or may not mean death - depending on whether He thinks you might be of some use to somebody who's fixin' to head down the same bad road you've been down.



If I accept your explanation , will you explain to me why every one [Christians] in that very same place in life, is not helped as you were ?


----------



## gordon 2

earl said:


> God does not cure. If He did all Christians would be healthy,wealthy and have no marital problems.  Either that or God ignores some Christian's prayers. Or do you have to have so many good works to your credit first ?



You believe things concerning God that are exactly what Job also thought...incorrectly.

Also, I must admit that some christians are so in name only as they don't know much about God...although they think they do. They wait for life following death and permit injustice as appropriate to a fallen existance. They are not much above their recent ancestor, the pagan.


----------



## crackerdave

earl said:


> Do you think they may be turning to God for the wrong reason ? Or is any reason a good reason ? I would be willing to bet that some of those saved out of desparate times will go back to their old ways when things get better. Yes ,I know ,they weren;t really saved to start with.:


Some maybe will go back,earl.Even God does not have infinite patience with His churren,and He will admonish/punish them and give them another chance [like He did Israel so many times in the Old Testament] but eventually His patience will run out.Maybe He says:"I'm gonna take this one out,before he gets any worse - it doesn't look like he's ever gonna get it." I don't know -all I know is what He brought this ol' hardheaded cracker out of,and I _ain't_ going back!


----------



## earl

gtparts said:


> God is not obligated to grant our (those who are Christians) every wish. He is not a genie. Jinn or genies are Muslim concepts. God responds according to His will. What He has promised, He will keep. He does not ignore the cries of His children. A Christian can expect God to respond in several ways: "Yes", "No", and "Not now". It is also possible and frequently happens that He does not inform us of His response, He just acts, when and how He chooses. What status does anyone hold that would obligate God to keep them informed on all that He wills to do? Does the rug instruct the weaver as to the pattern he should employ? Does the clay dictate to the potter the shape and size it is to have? Or the use for which it is created?
> 
> One minute you preach logic and the next you are drawing your own spurious conclusions to suit the argument you are trying to make.  Christians in this life are subject to the same consequences of coming in contact with H1N1 as non-Christians. Generally, we get no special treatment, though sometimes, by God's grace, we are spared some experiences. God is just as likely to cure a non-Christian if it accomplishes His will.
> 
> God is a rewarder of those who are are faithful, in His way, in His time. Good works count. God has prepared good things for us to do. They just don't have an effect on salvation. Salvation is by faith alone.



Not sure how those Muslim genies got in the debate. You say that Christians are subject to the same consequences as hethens with no special treatment. Then you say God is a rewarder of those who are faithful. And good works count.
 I don't want to draw anymore spurious conclusions and logic is unacceptable. So please explain to me to me what makes you believe that God would cure a heathen just as likely as he would a Christian he wants to reward. One that is way ahead in the good works department too.


----------



## The Original Rooster

earl said:


> If I accept your explanation , will you explain to me why every one [Christians] in that very same place in life, is not helped as you were ?



earl, 
while I haven't had the experience of CrackerDave, I know in my own life that it's been an issue of not listening. I've faced things where I thought I'd handle it myself or didn't want to change what I was doing even though it was wrong. I guess a Christian has to be ready to hear what God has to say and willing to do what he wants us to do instead of being stubborn and going along the way we want to.


----------



## crackerdave

earl said:


> If I accept your explanation , will you explain to me why every one [Christians] in that very same place in life, is not helped as you were ?



I honestly have no idea,earl.
But I will tell you this: At my lowest point [I'll spare you the gory details] He told me just as plain as I'm telling you: "Someday you _will_ have a home and a family." Many years later,that promise was fulfilled beyond anything I could have ever hoped for,and I feel like if I don't have a heart for people that are like I was and try to warn them,then I'm letting God down in the worst possible way.


----------



## JBinkley

earl said:


> Do you think they may be turning to God for the wrong reason ? Or is any reason a good reason ? I would be willing to bet that some of those saved out of desparate times will go back to their old ways when things get better. Yes ,I know ,they weren;t really saved to start with.:



Some may go back to thier old ways but, if only one is truly saved he touches many more lives than just his own. Don't believe there is a wrong reason.


----------



## earl

crackerdave said:


> Some maybe will go back,earl.Even God does not have infinite patience with His churren,and He will admonish/punish them and give them another chance [like He did Israel so many times in the Old Testament] but eventually His patience will run out.Maybe He says:"I'm gonna take this one out,before he gets any worse - it doesn't look like he's ever gonna get it." I don't know -all I know is what He brought this ol' hardheaded cracker out of,and I _ain't_ going back!





I glad it worked out for you. Wouldn't be the same without you.


----------



## crackerdave

RoosterTodd said:


> earl,
> while I haven't had the experience of CrackerDave, I know in my own life that it's been an issue of not listening. I've faced things where I thought I'd handle it myself or didn't want to change what I was doing even though it was wrong. I guess a Christian has to be ready to hear what God has to say and willing to do what he wants us to do instead of being stubborn and going along the way we want to.



Exactly!


----------



## gordon 2

grizzlyblake said:


> Ok, I understand that it's supposed to make things better if you suffer and then overcome your pain. What I don't understand is why this is necessary. I don't make my dogs stay out in a winter rain just so they appreciate it more when I let them in the house. I pretty much love them unconditionally so I do everything in my power to make sure they're happy and comfortable. I see nothing to be gained by testing them or making them deal with pain so that they appreciate the good.



I bet you don't love your dogs unconditionally. If one of them starts to pee 5 times a day on 5 different door jambs, with the urine swelling your flooring what's gona go first the house or the dog? I'm betting that realestate is more import to you than a dog.

If you have not tested your dogs they own you.


----------



## crackerdave

earl said:


> I glad it worked out for you. Wouldn't be the same without you.


Thanks.earl - I think a lot of you,too.


----------



## earl

RoosterTodd said:


> earl,
> while I haven't had the experience of CrackerDave, I know in my own life that it's been an issue of not listening. I've faced things where I thought I'd handle it myself or didn't want to change what I was doing even though it was wrong. I guess a Christian has to be ready to hear what God has to say and willing to do what he wants us to do instead of being stubborn and going along the way we want to.



I guess what I was trying to get across was there is no ryme or reason to the question in the op. Good,bad,Christian,heathen,seems like we all faace the same odds,so I find it hard to believe that God is involved. If he truly is the Christians are getting the short end of the stick.


----------



## earl

gordon 2 said:


> I bet you don't love your dogs unconditionally. If one of them starts to pee 5 times a day on 5 different door jambs, with the urine swelling your flooring what's gona go first the house or the dog? I'm betting that realestate is more import to you than a dog.
> 
> If you have not tested your dogs they own you.




I love my wife unconditionally but if she does that we are still going to have a problem !!


----------



## grizzlyblake

gordon 2 said:


> I bet you don't love your dogs unconditionally. If one of them starts to pee 5 times a day on 5 different door jambs, with the urine swelling your flooring what's gona go first the house or the dog? I'm betting that realestate is more import to you than a dog.
> 
> If you have not tested your dogs they own you.



You'd be surprised. They are obscenely spoiled. They are never boarded, they come to work with me all the time, they get away with whatever they want, and whenever it rains they do pee everywhere. In fact, here's what they're up to right this very second. Yep, that's leather.

Seriously though, you may be right about "unconditionally" but I certainly am not going to put them through hard times or test them just so they appreciate the good times more.


----------



## The Original Rooster

earl said:


> I guess what I was trying to get across was there is no ryme or reason to the question in the op. Good,bad,Christian,heathen,seems like we all faace the same odds,so I find it hard to believe that God is involved. If he truly is the Christians are getting the short end of the stick.



Oh, I don't know earl. One of the most successful organizations to every help people like Dave described is AA. Part of the process is recognizing that there is a higher benevolent power. Maybe God is helping those that are finally listening? Good night! 6am comes early tomorrow!


----------



## gtparts

earl said:


> The problem I have with that explanation is this. The bible is God's inspired word is it not ? Should John 3:16 be taken as John's thoughts on God and not something for me? If I can not take any verse in any book in the bible and apply it directly to my life , it has no meaning for me so it cannot be God's inspired words  for me.
> 
> Once again we have the translation problem. Ain't it funny how when somebody other than a Christian uses a verse ,it becomes a translation problem. No wonder there is such a hard time spreading the Word.
> 
> gt ,I spent the majority of my youth being taught and indoctrinated into God's Word. I was taught from the bible from day one. If the church doors were open or if there was a revival, tent meeting, or anything else involving God's word ,you can rest assured that I was there unless I was deathly ill or in the hospital.
> Of course being that involved ,I also got to see the underbelly of the beast too. It ain't pretty.
> It's been said in another post something to the effect of you can't have the good if you don't have the bad. Some times the bad overwhelms the good. Or to put it another way there isn't enough good to overcome the bad.



I genuinely feel sorry for the disservice done you. The entire Bible is for revealing God to us and His plan for us. It is not all about earl... or me. Accept the fact that when the behavior of women is addressed, it is NOT for you. It is, however, for someone else. When the actions of a good shepherd are mentioned, do you keep sheep? Is there a message for you in that story, even though you don't keep sheep? The totality of the Bible is God inspired. That doesn't mean it all has to do with you. Much of the Old Testament is specifically for the nation of Israel, but it may have broader application. Understanding the Bible is not easy. It cannot be studied casually or sparingly and have full effect. You say you were taught and indoctrinated as a young person. By the depth of your understanding, it is clear you had poor teachers, you were an unwilling student, or both. I do not say that critically, but as a conclusion based on many of your postings. And I have great sympathy for the spiritual wreckage that is the result. To be candid, I have no idea if you will ever develop a passion to know God as He is. It seems some have made that very difficult for you by their own ignorance or lack of teaching skills. 


earl, 

It's 11:37 and I must retire for the night, but if you are interested, I'll try to get back to you tomorrow. 

Peace.


----------



## crackerdave

Good night,John Boy.Good night,Jim Bob .Good night,Elizabeth.


----------



## ddd-shooter

Ah...The theodicy problem in all its glory.

I posted this in another thread before I saw this one:

If your wife was the only woman on the earth, would you have a choice in loving her? 
How would you prove your love to her? How would she know if you were faithful? 

I think God knew (and purposefully gave us) the potential we had as humans when he created us. I think God gives us the chance to choose life or death everyday.


----------



## earl

Good night grand paw.

gt I will take you up on your invite. It will likeley be late tomorrow as I have babysitting duties all day. Life is good.


----------



## ddd-shooter

earl said:


> I guess what I was trying to get across was there is no ryme or reason to the question in the op. Good,bad,Christian,heathen,seems like we all faace the same odds,so I find it hard to believe that God is involved. If he truly is the Christians are getting the short end of the stick.



DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!


earl, the very God you rail about being SO unfair and horrible has proved his love for you by giving you exactly the same odds in this world as those whom he calls sons. 


Mathew 5:
41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 
   42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 
   43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 
   44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 
   45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 
   46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 
   47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 
   48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect

Imagine the cries of "unfair God" from the atheists if God treated Christians better. 
Then, imagine all those who would "believe" and call themselves Christians simply for the "freebies."


----------



## Israel

ddd-shooter said:


> DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> earl, the very God you rail about being SO unfair and horrible has proved his love for you by giving you exactly the same odds in this world as those whom he calls sons.
> 
> 
> Mathew 5:
> 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
> 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
> 43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
> 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
> 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
> 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
> 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
> 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect
> 
> Imagine the cries of "unfair God" from the atheists if God treated Christians better.
> Then, imagine all those who would "believe" and call themselves Christians simply for the "freebies."



Only the wind, rain, stroms and shaking will reveal upon which foundation the house is built.
He causes it to rain upon the just and unjust.


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> Only the wind, rain, stroms and shaking will reveal upon which foundation the house is built.
> He causes it to rain upon the just and unjust.



Yes...this is a great example of the power of aligory regards serious spiritual matters.

A comparison would be: A man practiced real hard his guitar playing all his life, only to find out near the end that it was a preperation, because at the end he picked up the banjo. At the first his hearing was healthy, yet at the end it was weary but his ear heard what youth's heart could not. And so all the ringings were true and the tune came into its own as poetry.  

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r26-QhXc9Xs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r26-QhXc9Xs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## gtparts

gordon 2 said:


> Yes...this is a great example of the power of aligory regards serious spiritual matters.
> 
> A comparison would be: A man practiced real hard his guitar playing all his life, only to find out near the end that it was a preperation, because at the end he picked up the banjo. At the first his hearing was healthy, yet at the end it was weary but his ear heard what youth's heart could not. And so all the ringings were true and the tune came into its own as poetry.
> 
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r26-QhXc9Xs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r26-QhXc9Xs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



Gordo, 

You do wax poetic. And I just love the accompaniment. Thanks again.


----------



## CRT

grizzlyblake said:


> I would like to hear some straight forward answers to this one.
> 
> Let's assume that god is both omnipotent and omniscient. Let's also assume that his love is unconditional. (Ideas pulled from the Bible)
> 
> Now, we are all aware that the world is full of horrible things, with innocent people being killed daily, children suffering, families starving, stabbings, shootings, rapes, the list goes on and on. Based on the arguments I've seen on here that Christianity is the majority belief in the world, let's say that 60% of the people involved in these horrible events are Christians. (Just a guess)
> 
> My question is: Why does god not prevent these things from happening to people? If his love is unconditional it should cover everyone, but if he only loves his worshipers the 60% should be protected at the least.
> 
> Here are the choices to explain this:
> 
> A) God is omniscient and omnipotent, but is not caring enough to step in and prevent these things from happening to his followers.
> 
> B) God does care enough to protect his followers, but is not omniscient or omnipotent, and therefore not a god after all.
> 
> 
> Before anyone starts screaming that I'm just pot-stirring I'll bear my feelings here and say that this issue is the number one reason that I no longer believe in god. Therefore this is a very serious question that I have and as of yet I have not found an answer that actually addresses the two options.



The answer is...

You asked the wrong question. The question you really need answered is not "Why doesn't God prevent bad things from happening?"

If God is omniscient, then He knows everything you thought, said, and did yesterday.

If God is omnipotent, then He has the power to have destroyed you in your sleep last night.

If God is holy, then He should have destroyed you in your sleep last night, because you are not holy.

So the question is, "Why did God not destroy you as you slept last night? Why did He allow you to see the gift of another day?"

The answer... because God is love. Instead of destroying you last night for the sins you committed against Him yesterday, He destroyed His Son on the cross, pouring out His holy anger and hatred for your sin on He who never sinned. 

Man is the cause of all the evil you see, and for God to rid the world of all the pain and suffering, He would destroy all of mankind. One day He will, but for now, He is longsuffering toward us, not willing that we all should perish, but that those who are His will come to repentance and faith in Jesus.

Therefore, repent or you will likewise perish.

And may God give you ears to hear, eyes to see, and a heart to respond.

Soli Deo Gloria


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> Ok, I understand that it's supposed to make things better if you suffer and then overcome your pain. What I don't understand is why this is necessary. I don't make my dogs stay out in a winter rain just so they appreciate it more when I let them in the house. I pretty much love them unconditionally so I do everything in my power to make sure they're happy and comfortable. I see nothing to be gained by testing them or making them deal with pain so that they appreciate the good.



Every post I read says the same thing to me...If Blake was God, he'd do things different.  Great...me too.  That in NO way indicates that there isn't a God.  It may indicate that there isn't a God that Blake wants to follow, but anybody who's read the Scriptures expects that.  If my daughter made all the decisions in my house, things would be VERY different as well.  That doesn't mean that I don't know better.  How much more is that true with God?  

You really need to ask yourself whether you want to know God as he is or how you'd like him to be.


----------



## grizzlyblake

No, what I'm asking is - what's the point? I have a hard time understanding why god, if he is all powerful, doesn't just fix things? I'm wondering why it's all some gigantic game. Is it for god's entertainment? Why did god make an imperfect world when he allegedly has the power to make everything perfect?

It's the lack of action that I'm talking about. When I hear of a 4 year old child perishing in a house fire I just wonder, why did that happen? If god was merely "calling" his sheep back home wouldn't it have been better to do it without all the pain and suffering to the child, as well as the family? 

See what I'm saying? 

From what I have gathered in this thread the only real answer seems to be so that god can test his worshipers or make them endure pain so that they some how become "better" people inside and then appreciate the good things more. Am I right?


----------



## Randy

Free will.


----------



## CRT

grizzlyblake said:


> No, what I'm asking is - what's the point? I have a hard time understanding why god, if he is all powerful, doesn't just fix things? I'm wondering why it's all some gigantic game. Is it for god's entertainment? Why did god make an imperfect world when he allegedly has the power to make everything perfect?
> 
> It's the lack of action that I'm talking about. When I hear of a 4 year old child perishing in a house fire I just wonder, why did that happen? If god was merely "calling" his sheep back home wouldn't it have been better to do it without all the pain and suffering to the child, as well as the family?
> 
> See what I'm saying?
> 
> From what I have gathered in this thread the only real answer seems to be so that god can test his worshipers or make them endure pain so that they some how become "better" people inside and then appreciate the good things more. Am I right?



I understand what your saying (or "typing" for $6MHam), but why do we believe we deserve better? We live in a messed up world and we are the problem, but life is not ALL bad. What would be better, to be given the gift of life, having to take the good and the bad, or to never be given life at all?

I don't think we'll ever understand everything about pain and suffering. I don't understand why I have one baby that I never got to hold and three here with me. What did that one do not be given life? Nothing. And what did that one do to deserve to be given life. Nothing. Same as my other children and you and me. We did nothing to deserve life or anything good, but God has given it to us anyway. And we deserve way more suffering than we get this side of eternity (or even on the otherside), but God has made a way for us to be reconciled with Him and not have to bear His wrath against our sins. 

As long as we believe that somebody owes us only good, we will only see that if God exist, He should be giving everybody only good. But the truth is, we all deserve only pain and suffering because we are evil, but God through His love gives good things to everyone (whether they worship Him or not) and He's there to help us through the pain and suffering (that we more times than not bring on ourselves). Life is good and we don't deserve it. So be glad and praise God that you have it.

Soli Deo Gloria


----------



## TDBone

grizzlyblake said:


> No, what I'm asking is - what's the point? I have a hard time understanding why god, if he is all powerful, doesn't just fix things? I'm wondering why it's all some gigantic game. Is it for god's entertainment? Why did god make an imperfect world when he allegedly has the power to make everything perfect?
> 
> It's the lack of action that I'm talking about. When I hear of a 4 year old child perishing in a house fire I just wonder, why did that happen? If god was merely "calling" his sheep back home wouldn't it have been better to do it without all the pain and suffering to the child, as well as the family?
> 
> See what I'm saying?
> 
> From what I have gathered in this thread the only real answer seems to be so that god can test his worshipers or make them endure pain so that they some how become "better" people inside and then appreciate the good things more. Am I right?



Watch those videos...there are some answers there.


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> No, what I'm asking is - what's the point? I have a hard time understanding why god, if he is all powerful, doesn't just fix things? I'm wondering why it's all some gigantic game. Is it for god's entertainment? Why did god make an imperfect world when he allegedly has the power to make everything perfect?
> 
> It's the lack of action that I'm talking about. When I hear of a 4 year old child perishing in a house fire I just wonder, why did that happen? If god was merely "calling" his sheep back home wouldn't it have been better to do it without all the pain and suffering to the child, as well as the family?
> 
> See what I'm saying?
> 
> From what I have gathered in this thread the only real answer seems to be so that god can test his worshipers or make them endure pain so that they some how become "better" people inside and then appreciate the good things more. Am I right?



I see exactly what you're saying...you'd do things differently.  You want to understand why everything happens and if you can't, you don't see a point.  Do you remember my point about my daughter?  She didn't understand either, but that didn't change the fact that I had her best interest in mind.

I've got a question for you...without imperfection, could you recognize perfection?


----------



## pnome

The problem of evil is very old....


----------



## TDBone

johnnylightnin said:


> I see exactly what you're saying...you'd do things differently.  You want to understand why everything happens and if you can't, you don't see a point.  Do you remember my point about my daughter?  She didn't understand either, but that didn't change the fact that I had her best interest in mind.
> 
> *I've got a question for you...without imperfection, could you recognize perfection?*



Nope.

Without bad, good wouldn't be 'good', it would be the norm. It would be unnoticeable and unidentifiable.


----------



## ambush80

5pointCal said:


> The answer is...
> 
> You asked the wrong question. The question you really need answered is not "Why doesn't God prevent bad things from happening?"
> 
> If God is omniscient, then He knows everything you thought, said, and did yesterday.
> 
> If God is omnipotent, then He has the power to have destroyed you in your sleep last night.
> 
> If God is holy, then He should have destroyed you in your sleep last night, because you are not holy.
> 
> So the question is, "Why did God not destroy you as you slept last night? Why did He allow you to see the gift of another day?"
> 
> The answer... because God is love. Instead of destroying you last night for the sins you committed against Him yesterday, He destroyed His Son on the cross, pouring out His holy anger and hatred for your sin on He who never sinned.
> 
> Man is the cause of all the evil you see, and for God to rid the world of all the pain and suffering, He would destroy all of mankind. One day He will, but for now, He is longsuffering toward us, not willing that we all should perish, but that those who are His will come to repentance and faith in Jesus.
> 
> Therefore, repent or you will likewise perish.
> 
> And may God give you ears to hear, eyes to see, and a heart to respond.
> 
> Soli Deo Gloria



He destroyed someone last night.  I'm sure of it.  They might have been a good person.  They might have been a devout Christian.   He does things without rhyme or reason, as far as we can tell.  If I declare "He doesn't exist" I either continue to breathe or I cease, and no one can definitively say why.



5pointCal said:


> I understand what your saying (or "typing" for $6MHam), but why do we believe we deserve better? We live in a messed up world and we are the problem, but life is not ALL bad. What would be better, to be given the gift of life, having to take the good and the bad, or to never be given life at all?
> 
> I don't think we'll ever understand everything about pain and suffering. I don't understand why I have one baby that I never got to hold and three here with me. What did that one do not be given life? Nothing. And what did that one do to deserve to be given life. Nothing. Same as my other children and you and me. We did nothing to deserve life or anything good, but God has given it to us anyway. And we deserve way more suffering than we get this side of eternity (or even on the otherside), but God has made a way for us to be reconciled with Him and not have to bear His wrath against our sins.
> 
> As long as we believe that somebody owes us only good, we will only see that if God exist, He should be giving everybody only good. But the truth is, we all deserve only pain and suffering because we are evil, but God through His love gives good things to everyone (whether they worship Him or not) and He's there to help us through the pain and suffering (that we more times than not bring on ourselves). Life is good and we don't deserve it. So be glad and praise God that you have it.
> 
> Soli Deo Gloria



Think of the psychological ramifications of living under the perception that I highlighted in blue.  Psychologists have a clinical term for people that feel that way about themselves.


----------



## johnnylightnin

ambush80 said:


> Think of the psychological ramifications of living under the perception that I highlighted in blue.  Psychologists have a clinical term for people that feel that way about themselves.



They also have a term for those who think they are entitled to things that they are not entitled to.

Ramifications are important, but truth is more important.  If what is highlighted is true, the ramifications must be dealt with whether we like them or not.


----------



## ambush80

johnnylightnin said:


> They also have a term for those who think they are entitled to things that they are not entitled to.
> 
> Ramifications are important, but truth is more important.  If what is highlighted is true, the ramifications must be dealt with whether we like them or not.



You think I'm not entitled to feel guilt free?   What have I done?  Mostly good is the answer.  If what I highlighted isn't true?  You want me to live my life feeling guilty anyways?  Shame, shame, shame.


----------



## CRT

ambush80 said:


> He destroyed someone last night.  I'm sure of it.  They might have been a good person.  They might have been a devout Christian.   He does things without rhyme or reason, as far as we can tell.  If I declare "He doesn't exist" I either continue to breathe or I cease, and no one can definitively say why.



And because you, in your omniscience, can't understand everything He does and the reason, God must not exist. 





> Think of the psychological ramifications of living under the perception that I highlighted in blue.  Psychologists have a clinical term for people that feel that way about themselves.



What ramifications are you talking about?? Oh, you mean that because I truly believe that I did nothing to deserve this physical life that has been given me, and that because of all the evil things I have done, I deserve to be punished, so I thank God that He first gave me life, knowing what a screwup I would be, and then in spite of my screwups, He gave His Son to pay for my sins. And because of the gratitude and love for what He has done for me, I strive to keep His command to love Him and my fellow man and serve them. Yea, I could see where that would be a problem, as I may have to sacrifice my own selfish desires and ambitions, which goes so completely against our nature.


----------



## johnnylightnin

ambush80 said:


> You think I'm not entitled to feel guilt free?   What have I done?  Mostly good is the answer.  If what I highlighted isn't true?  You want me to live my life feeling guilty anyways?  Shame, shame, shame.



You've done mostly good as defined by who?  What about the bad that you've done?  Why should you feel guilt-free if you have guilt?  The fact that you can declare something good means you recognize objective goodness (where did that come from?) or you feel as though you can make the judgment yourself.  If you're the judge, it's not likely that you'll condemn yourself now is it?


----------



## Ronnie T

The problem:

We all kinda look at ourselves as god.  We have all the answers, we know how something should have been done, we've figured God out.
If you have figured God out, consider yourself a god.


----------



## earl

gtparts said:


> I genuinely feel sorry for the disservice done you. The entire Bible is for revealing God to us and His plan for us. It is not all about earl... or me. Accept the fact that when the behavior of women is addressed, it is NOT for you. It is, however, for someone else. When the actions of a good shepherd are mentioned, do you keep sheep? Is there a message for you in that story, even though you don't keep sheep? The totality of the Bible is God inspired. That doesn't mean it all has to do with you. Much of the Old Testament is specifically for the nation of Israel, but it may have broader application. Understanding the Bible is not easy. It cannot be studied casually or sparingly and have full effect. You say you were taught and indoctrinated as a young person. By the depth of your understanding, it is clear you had poor teachers, you were an unwilling student, or both. I do not say that critically, but as a conclusion based on many of your postings. And I have great sympathy for the spiritual wreckage that is the result. To be candid, I have no idea if you will ever develop a passion to know God as He is. It seems some have made that very difficult for you by their own ignorance or lack of teaching skills.
> 
> 
> earl,
> 
> It's 11:37 and I must retire for the night, but if you are interested, I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.
> 
> Peace.



I disagree [of course] Every word in the bible should be important. When women are being talked to , man should listen so he knows what to expect from a Christian woman. Has she cut her crowning glory ? Does she try to preach? No I don't herd sheep ,but when shephards are being instructed ,Should I ignore the lesson of the lost sheep ? Every word in the OT and the NT should speak to ME. Every verse should have a lesson for me.
  I was raised by the most Godly people you ever met. They did as God commanded and put him first in everything, every time. Yes ,I turned into an unwilling student as soon as I figured out that I was as worthy  as the next person. Funny how that fire and brimstone crap turned the tables for me.
 The spiritual wreckage took a while to get cleared up . It was like getting out of a cult. You can think clearer when you get out of it.
The difficulty you see is not one of ignorance or bad teaching skills. Quite the opposite. The more I learn ,the less I need a crutch.


Just a thought . You may want to read the bible with an eye to what it has for you personally.


----------



## earl

ddd-shooter said:


> DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> earl, the very God you rail about being SO unfair and horrible has proved his love for you by giving you exactly the same odds in this world as those whom he calls sons.
> 
> 
> Mathew 5:
> 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
> 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
> 43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
> 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
> 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
> 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
> 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
> 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect
> 
> Imagine the cries of "unfair God" from the atheists if God treated Christians better.
> Then, imagine all those who would "believe" and call themselves Christians simply for the "freebies."





Ding ding ding WARNING !!!
 What you have presented as a good thing isn't. Short example.
Your child and your brother's child are in a house fire. You can only save one.

If you are a father the answer is a foregone conclusion. If as a Christian ,I am not fore most in God's mind, what good does it do ?

If you let your child burn up in that fire while saving some one elses,I would not want you for a father.

 I don't remember fair being a part of my epistle. The question was'' Why doesn't God prevent...''


----------



## earl

Ya'll are some messed upp individuals. If you feed that crap to your kids ,you WILL have some messed up kids.  
I don't understand why ya;ll stopped short of the sackcloth and ashes. 
Just another reason not to believe in the Christian God as defined by the sadists among us.


----------



## earl

grizzlyblake said:


> No, what I'm asking is - what's the point? I have a hard time understanding why god, if he is all powerful, doesn't just fix things? I'm wondering why it's all some gigantic game. Is it for god's entertainment? Why did god make an imperfect world when he allegedly has the power to make everything perfect?
> 
> It's the lack of action that I'm talking about. When I hear of a 4 year old child perishing in a house fire I just wonder, why did that happen? If god was merely "calling" his sheep back home wouldn't it have been better to do it without all the pain and suffering to the child, as well as the family?
> 
> See what I'm saying?
> 
> From what I have gathered in this thread the only real answer seems to be so that god can test his worshipers or make them endure pain so that they some how become "better" people inside and then appreciate the good things more. Am I right?





You aren't worthy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## grizzlyblake

I'm just glad I can wake up in the morning with a smile on my face instead of feeling like I'm not worthy to be alive. That would definitely ruin my time in the tree stand.


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> I'm just glad I can wake up in the morning with a smile on my face instead of feeling like I'm not worthy to be alive. That would definitely ruin my time in the tree stand.



That's all well and good, but what makes you think you're worthy of anything?  What standard do you use when you declare that you deserve one thing or another?  Who made that standard and who declared it a good standard?


----------



## grizzlyblake

Well, my default isn't that I'm not worthy of life. Sorry, that's just a sick way to live.


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> Well, my default isn't that I'm not worthy of life. Sorry, that's just a sick way to live.



Opinions aside, what do you base that default position upon?  Why do you think you're justified in that belief?  I'd like to think that I'm the best husband in Baldwin county.  It makes me feel good to think that and I enjoy that feeling.  Of course, I don't have any good reason to think I'm the best husband in Baldwin county, so my preference doesn't really matter.


----------



## grizzlyblake

Here we go again with the ridiculous questions. This is very similar to the "prove you don't believe in god" ordeal. 

So, on what do I base my opinion that I'm not a horrible-not-worthy-to-be-alive person?

Hmm, anyone else want to take a stab at this or do you all think you should be destroyed by your god?


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> Here we go again with the ridiculous questions. This is very similar to the "prove you don't believe in god" ordeal.
> 
> So, on what do I base my opinion that I'm not a horrible-not-worthy-to-be-alive person?



So, why can't you answer the question?  It's very simple and it's at the root of your greater question.  If you're serious about your greater question, you should take some time and try to figure out WHY you think you deserve certain things.  

It's at the heart of the question because the way you pose the OP, you inherently assume that those who are not spared evil are unfairly subjected to it...like they deserve better.  In many cases, you are right, but the question is why?  Where do these standards of justice and fairness come from?  You've stated that your default is that you are worthy of life.  Where does that default come from?  Does it have a basis in reality or is it just something you choose to believe because it makes you feel better?


----------



## ambush80

5pointCal said:


> And because you, in your omniscience, can't understand everything He does and the reason, God must not exist.



I don't know if he exists or not.  Furthermore, If a magical being exists, far be it from me to impose my Earthly understanding of justice or reason to him.  What I am entitled to do is express my opinion.  And my opinion is that a being like that is not worthy of worship.

My dog respects me as the pack leader.  I'm like her God.  She fears my wrath and probably appreciates my kindness.  I can walk up to her in her sleep and punch her in the head.  She will cower and look up at me but she will still come to me if I command her to, probably with her tail between her legs.  She might even pee the floor.  If I continue to beat her in her sleep and she continues to honor me, does that make her a good dog?



5pointCal said:


> What ramifications are you talking about?? Oh, you mean that because I truly believe that I did nothing to deserve this physical life that has been given me, and that because of all the evil things I have done, I deserve to be punished, so I thank God that He first gave me life, knowing what a screwup I would be, and then in spite of my screwups, He gave His Son to pay for my sins. And because of the gratitude and love for what He has done for me, I strive to keep His command to love Him and my fellow man and serve them. Yea, I could see where that would be a problem, as I may have to sacrifice my own selfish desires and ambitions, which goes so completely against our nature.



Maybe you've done some pretty bad things.   I don't know.  I haven't.  I do good because I have determined it to be the best thing to do.



johnnylightnin said:


> You've done mostly good as defined by who?



As defined by society.  By law.  By my conscience (That I had to develop, despite the indoctrination I received as a child)



johnnylightnin said:


> What about the bad that you've done?  Why should you feel guilt-free if you have guilt?  The fact that you can declare something good means you recognize objective goodness (where did that come from?) or you feel as though you can make the judgment yourself.  If you're the judge, it's not likely that you'll condemn yourself now is it?



I feel guilty about the bad things I do specifically and try to make amends when I can and not repeat them.  I don't feel constant guilt as an operational operational platform.  Why should I?  Because of Adam?

Subjective goodness.  I'm a moral relativist.  Surprised?  We should discuss the validity of such a position sometime.





Ronnie T said:


> The problem:
> 
> We all kinda look at ourselves as god.  We have all the answers, we know how something should have been done, we've figured God out.
> If you have figured God out, consider yourself a god.



I look at myself as "me".  I'm just like you, and the millions of yous and mes that have come before.  I have some working answers and I have some questions.  I constantly refine and investigate.  I'm not afraid of me. I don't worship me.  I have me and the advice of you to help me define good and bad.  The Good Book, I have determined, and with the advice of reasonable people, to be fraught with some bad advice.


----------



## grizzlyblake

If you keep kicking you dog and he keeps coming back to you he's an idiot and everything that happens from that point forward is his own fault for not wising up and running away.

Not that that has anything to do with this discussion...


----------



## ambush80

johnnylightnin said:


> So, why can't you answer the question?  It's very simple and it's at the root of your greater question.  If you're serious about your greater question, you should take some time and try to figure out WHY you think you deserve certain things.
> 
> It's at the heart of the question because the way you pose the OP, you inherently assume that those who are not spared evil are unfairly subjected to it...like they deserve better.  In many cases, you are right, but the question is why?  Where do these standards of justice and fairness come from?  You've stated that your default is that you are worthy of life.  Where does that default come from?  Does it have a basis in reality or is it just something you choose to believe because it makes you feel better?



If I may interject, my experience has led me to believe that things just happen.  Deserving (as Clint Eastwood in _Unforgiven_ puts it) has nothing to do with it.  See my comment above about beating my dog.   Does she deserve it?  Does my beating her trouble you in a visceral way?   If it does, then I would say that you have some sense of "deserving".  If you got your sense of deserving from God (your sense of right and wrong, maybe justice as well), as you claim, then what do you make of it when he subjects you or anyone to apparently undeserved punishment?


----------



## ambush80

grizzlyblake said:


> If you keep kicking you dog and he keeps coming back to you he's an idiot and everything that happens from that point forward is his own fault for not wising up and running away.
> 
> Not that that has anything to do with this discussion...



Oh, but it does.  The Christians look up at their master with big fawning eyes and bowed heads and say "I don't understand why you did that to me but I know that you love me and that you are all goodness.  I must have deserved it.  I'm a bad dog."

You are exactly right about running away.


----------



## grizzlyblake

Yeah, that post was dripping with sarcasm. 

I have seen dogs that carry the "I'm not worthy" default attitude. It's disgusting.


----------



## johnnylightnin

ambush80 said:


> _apparently_ undeserved punishment?



The underlined part is what is at issue.  Those who see evil and reject God because of it assume there is no redeeming value that will come from it.  How do you know?  

What if I see you kick your dog and it inspires me to start a fund for abused animals?  Your dog dies (and goes to heaven...like all dogs do), but millions are saved because of your abuse.  Was the "evil" done to your dog the whole story?  Was the greater good served?


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> Yeah, that post was dripping with sarcasm.
> 
> I have seen dogs that carry the "I'm not worthy" default attitude. It's disgusting.



I don't see how ones reaction to one thing or another speaks to the validity of it.


----------



## ambush80

johnnylightnin said:


> The underlined part is what is at issue.  Those who see evil and reject God because of it assume there is no redeeming value that will come from it.  How do you know?
> 
> What if I see you kick your dog and it inspires me to start a fund for abused animals?  Your dog dies (and goes to heaven...like all dogs do), but millions are saved because of your abuse.  Was the "evil" done to your dog the whole story?  Was the greater good served?



How about you see me kicking my dog then come over and kick my butt?   

Take into account that I'm using my relationship with my dog as a metaphor.  

You claim that God is the master.  I see that he kicks his dogs.  I say that he's a bad master, even if I do end up starting a shelter for beaten pups, which is the best I can do because apparently he keeps kicking dogs no matter what.


----------



## CRT

ambush80 said:


> How about you see me kicking my dog then come over and kick my butt?
> 
> Take into account that I'm using my relationship with my dog as a metaphor.
> 
> You claim that God is the master.  I see that he kicks his dogs.  I say that he's a bad master, even if I do end up starting a shelter for beaten pups, which is the best I can do because apparently he keeps kicking dogs no matter what.



Could you explain to me how God kicks his dogs? You act as if God is the reason for all the pain and suffering when He is not. We are. And He could very easily rid the world of all pain and suffering. He could just destroy us all. Have you ever been the cause of someones pain or suffering?


----------



## johnnylightnin

ambush80 said:


> I see that he kicks his dogs.



Really?  That's pretty amazing.  Do you find it interesting that you attribute the punishment to the master when, in fact, he's NEVER the one who carries out the evil?

I've never seen God physically do anything to anyone, so I'll have to defer to you on that.

In my analogy, let's say that I know exactly what will happen, so instead of stopping you from beating your dog, I place the concerned future dog saver in your path.  I choose not to set everything right myself and I let you and the dog lover work things out.  What's better?  Should I physically make you stop beating your dog or help you come to the realization that beating your dog is wrong.  If I do it physically, what's to stop you from beating him again when I leave?


----------



## ambush80

johnnylightnin said:


> The underlined part is what is at issue.  Those who see evil and reject God because of it assume there is no redeeming value that will come from it.  How do you know?



Speaking of "apparently undeserved punishment", whatever good comes of it, it was still undeserved.  But I'm with you on the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.  Kindness to dogs need not be done in response to cruelty to dogs.  It should be done for its own sake.  Further more, what kind of an example is this to follow?


----------



## ambush80

5pointCal said:


> Could you explain to me how God kicks his dogs? You act as if God is the reason for all the pain and suffering when He is not. We are. And He could very easily rid the world of all pain and suffering. He could just destroy us all. Have you ever been the cause of someones pain or suffering?



You know what they call it when a tree falls through a house and kills a sleeping kid?  An act of God.

Yes.  I have caused suffering.  So what?  I strive not to.



johnnylightnin said:


> Really?  That's pretty amazing.  Do you find it interesting that you attribute the punishment to the master when, in fact, he's NEVER the one who carries out the evil?
> 
> I've never seen God physically do anything to anyone, so I'll have to defer to you on that.



Gross, life threatening physical deformity.  His will be done.



johnnylightnin said:


> In my analogy, let's say that I know exactly what will happen, so instead of stopping you from beating your dog, I place the concerned future dog saver in your path.  I choose not to set everything right myself and I let you and the dog lover work things out.  What's better?  Should I physically make you stop beating your dog or help you come to the realization that beating your dog is wrong.  If I do it physically, what's to stop you from beating him again when I leave?



You misunderstand. God is the dog beater.  I can't force him to stop.  When I said for you to kick his butt it was absurd.  But I agree with you.  Nothing can stop him.  He's relentless.


----------



## johnnylightnin

ambush80 said:


> Further more, what kind of an example is this to follow?



You'll have to elaborate on that.

And, I'm still unclear on who decides what is deserved and undeserved.  That post where I found the above quote seems to contradict your previous post about entitlement.


----------



## johnnylightnin

ambush80 said:


> 1. Gross, life threatening physical deformity.  His will be done.
> 
> You misunderstand. God is the dog beater.  I can't force him to stop.  When I said for you to kick his butt it was absurd.  But I agree with you.  Nothing can stop him.  He's relentless.



1. Why do you choose to attribute that to God?  Fetal alcohol syndrome is a beast.  Is it God's fault or the parents?

2. No, I understood.  I just challenge the statement that you've seen God "kick his dogs".


----------



## TDBone

ambush80 said:


> Oh, but it does.  The Christians look up at their master with big fawning eyes and bowed heads and say "I don't understand why you did that to me but I know that you love me and that you are all goodness.  *I must have deserved it.  I'm a bad dog.*"
> 
> You are exactly right about running away.



That sounds like a reaction from someone who believes in something like 'karma'. 

If I walk outside and get hit by a car and and am paralyzed from the waist down, I in no way am going to cower back to God saying "I must have deserved that. I am sorry for whatever I did yesterday that made you mad enough that you felt the need to throw a car in front of me and paralyze me from the waist down. I am a horrible person and totally deserved that."

I pray that my thoughts would go something like this..."God, although my situation is trying, nothing compares to what Jesus Christ endured for me on that cross. My hope and faith are in Jesus and His victory, not on my circumstances. Use my current situation to bring glory to Your name. Allow my faith in You to shine much brighter than any pain or tribulation I am enduring."


----------



## gtparts

TDBone said:


> That sounds like a reaction from someone who believes in something like 'karma'.
> 
> If I walk outside and get hit by a car and and am paralyzed from the waste down, I in no way am going to cower back to God saying "I must have deserved that. I am sorry for whatever I did yesterday that made you mad enough that you felt the need to throw a car in front of me and paralyze me from the waste down. I am a horrible person and totally deserved that."
> 
> I pray that my thoughts would go something like this..."God, although my situation is trying, nothing compares to what Jesus Christ endured for me on that cross. My hope and faith are in Jesus and His victory, not on my circumstances. Use my current situation to bring glory to Your name. Allow my faith in You to shine much brighter than any pain or tribulation I am enduring."



Uhhhhh.....TDB, I think you mean "waist".


----------



## TDBone

gtparts said:


> Uhhhhh.....TDB, I think you mean "waist".



You are correct. Thanks, I'll change that.


----------



## redwards

grizzlyblake said:


> ...I don't make my dogs stay out in a winter rain just so they appreciate it more when I let them in the house. I pretty much love them unconditionally so I do everything in my power to make sure they're happy and comfortable. I see nothing to be gained by testing them or making them deal with pain so that they appreciate the good.


So, does that mean you ALWAYS let them do as they wish...no matter what it is?
In other words...if they are out in your yard and start to cross the road/street...and you see a car coming down the road/street...do you REMAIN SILENT...or do you yell at them to STOP...seems to me you would want to "test" them for their obedience to their master's call so they would not have to deal with the certain "pain" the oncoming vehicle could and surely would inflict upon them.
'Course, no matter how much training and coaching YOU had done (you know...kind'a like omniscience and omnipotence) to and for your dogs...they could still just ignore your commands to "STOP"...and continue to dash into the road/street in front of the oncoming car!
See any correlation here?


----------



## Ronnie T

ambush80 said:


> If I may interject, my experience has led me to believe that things just happen.  Deserving (as Clint Eastwood in _Unforgiven_ puts it) has nothing to do with it.  See my comment above about beating my dog.   Does she deserve it?  Does my beating her trouble you in a visceral way?   If it does, then I would say that you have some sense of "deserving".  If you got your sense of deserving from God (your sense of right and wrong, maybe justice as well), as you claim, then what do you make of it when he subjects you or anyone to apparently undeserved punishment?



I agree with that above statement to a very large degree.
I do believe that God interjects Himself into our affairs as He decides to.


----------



## ddd-shooter

ambush80 said:


> Yes.  I have caused suffering.  So what?  I strive not to.
> 
> You misunderstand. God is the dog beater.  I can't force him to stop.  When I said for you to kick his butt it was absurd.  But I agree with you.  Nothing can stop him.  He's relentless.



Take the first statement and multiply it by all those who have lived and you will see what the point is. 

That second statement. Prove it.


----------



## Israel

God has done everything he could to keep something very bad from happening.
He has rescued his children out of a burning fire and willingly gave all he had to do so.


----------



## ambush80

johnnylightnin said:


> You'll have to elaborate on that.



If I see something about to fall on my sleeping dog I would try to prevent it.  God allows/authors it to happen.



johnnylightnin said:


> And, I'm still unclear on who decides what is deserved and undeserved.  That post where I found the above quote seems to contradict your previous post about entitlement.



First, the individual has to decide what is deserved.  They can be taught the idea but it won't mean anything until they "get it".  Once they are taught to reason, they can easily figure out what is just.  The Golden Rule is a logical survival strategy that anyone would come up with if they thought about it long enough.






johnnylightnin said:


> 1. Why do you choose to attribute that to God?  Fetal alcohol syndrome is a beast.  Is it God's fault or the parents?
> 
> 2. No, I understood.  I just challenge the statement that you've seen God "kick his dogs".



I see people suffering; for no apparent reason.  I can either attribute it to a higher cause, the will or design of God, or I can say that it's random.  If it is the will of a God, then he's not very nice (by my standards; formed by reason) .  Randomness I can accept.



ddd-shooter said:


> Take the first statement and multiply it by all those who have lived and you will see what the point is.
> 
> That second statement. Prove it.



I can't prove God.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> God has done everything he could to keep something very bad from happening.
> He has rescued his children out of a burning fire and willingly gave all he had to do so.




What burning fire?


----------



## CRT

ambush80 said:


> What burning fire?



Unless you repent, you will see.


----------



## johnnylightnin

So, you see no difference in allowance and causation?


----------



## ambush80

5pointCal said:


> Unless you repent, you will see.



Should I take your word for it?  or King James'?


----------



## ambush80

johnnylightnin said:


> So, you see no difference in allowance and causation?



Not from the stand point of the "victim".  Isn't there a legal term for that?


----------



## CRT

ambush80 said:


> Should I take your word for it?  or King James'?



I guess you'll have to take the word of whoever made up the legend of Jesus, because they were His words. King James actually didn't write any of the Bible. And neither did I. I had not even evolved into a dust mite back then.


----------



## HD28

I just can't see what good can come from or what purpose
can come from a child being raped and murdered! I sure wish the Good Lord would step in on these type situations a little more! It breaks my heart whenever I hear of such things and I always find myself wondering why, God, why?!


----------



## johnnylightnin

ambush80 said:


> I can either attribute it to a higher cause, the will or design of God, or I can say that it's random.



False dichotomy.  There are far more options.  People could be working against the will of God couldn't they?  The only way your dichotomy works is if men have no freedom at all (something both Calvinists and Arminians reject).  In such case, they are only robots that do God's bidding with no wills of their own.


----------



## johnnylightnin

ambush80 said:


> Not from the stand point of the "victim".  Isn't there a legal term for that?



No clue...I'm not a lawyer.  I would ask though, why would you only look at it from the standpoint of the victim?


----------



## grizzlyblake

HD28 said:


> I just can't see what good can come from or what purpose
> can come from a child being raped and murdered! I sure wish the Good Lord would step in on these type situations a little more! It breaks my heart whenever I hear of such things and I always find myself wondering why, God, why?!



According to the logic in here that child deserved it from the get-go because of Adam and Eve. God was doing them a favor by keeping them alive for so long, but that day he decided to give them what they had coming to them.

Don't worry though, someone probably set up a charity in the raped kid's name so in the end it was all for the greater good..........


Yeah, I don't get it either. This god must be a pretty sick character. Hey, maybe one of you people that talk to him could let him know that he could just save the kid to start with and nobody would have to waste time setting up a charity. Wouldn't that really be the greater good?


----------



## ambush80

HD28 said:


> I just can't see what good can come from or what purpose
> can come from a child being raped and murdered! I sure wish the Good Lord would step in on these type situations a little more! It breaks my heart whenever I hear of such things and I always find myself wondering why, God, why?!



Would you take more comfort in believing that it could have happened to anyone?  That it was a random act of violence?  Wrong place at the wrong time?


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> According to the logic in here that child deserved it from the get-go because of Adam and Eve. God was doing them a favor by keeping them alive for so long, but that day he decided to give them what they had coming to them.
> 
> Don't worry though, someone probably set up a charity in the raped kid's name so in the end it was all for the greater good..........
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't get it either. This god must be a pretty sick character. Hey, maybe one of you people that talk to him could let him know that he could just save the kid to start with and nobody would have to waste time setting up a charity. Wouldn't that really be the greater good?



Still refusing to answer my question I see...


----------



## grizzlyblake

johnnylightnin said:


> Still refusing to answer my question I see...



You mean, why do I believe that I'm worthy to be alive? Well, I'm sitting here aren't I? I was born wasn't I? I've never done anything that would justify my life being taken away. 

Why do you think you're worthy to talk to me on this forum?


----------



## HD28

ambush80 said:


> Would you take more comfort in believing that it could have happened to anyone?  That it was a random act of violence?  Wrong place at the wrong time?



I would really like to believe that he would take extra care of those little innocent children instead of letting them experience such horror! I just find it sad. I do know that God is God and he can and will do whatever he see's fit regardless of what we want or think.


----------



## ddd-shooter

Just a side note to ponder. 

How many here, if controlled by God everyday of their lives, would complain that God needed to mind his own business and let you live your life? 

I can hear it now. "God, just but out and let me do my thing." "I know how to live my life, and you keep holding me back." 

"Why did you create me if you are just gonna go around forcing me to do whatever you want me to!"


----------



## Huntinfool

I'll be honest, I haven't read through the thread.  So please forgive that.  I may go back when I have time.  

But here is my answer to your question....I don't know.  But what I do know is this.  The word "winner" necessitates the word "loser".

All cannot be good all the time for all.


OH...one more thing from my personal experience.  The worst thing that ever happened to me has turned out to be the absolute best thing that has happened to me in my entire life.  It's taken years and, at the time, if felt like I might die (or want to at least).  

All things truly DO work together for the good of those...

Bad turns to good for those who follow Christ.  It may not be immediate and it may not be apparent to all.  But I can tell you from personal experience that what happened to me is something I would not wish on my WORST enemy....and I can tell you today that had God NOT allowed that BAD thing to happen to me, he would never have gotten my attention and my life would not be what it is today.  I would still be stuck in a web of lies and destruction with no way out.

Sometimes, my man, he allows bad things to happen because they are the best possible thing he can do for us.  Something to ponder.


----------



## ambush80

HD28 said:


> I would really like to believe that he would take extra care of those little innocent children instead of letting them experience such horror! I just find it sad. I do know that God is God and he can and will do whatever he see's fit regardless of what we want or think.



That's right.  Trust and obey. For there's no other way,  to be happy in Jesus,  then to trust and obey.

You would never let something like that happen if you could help it.  But our ways are not His ways.

What if He's not there?  What if children go through stuff like that "just because"?  Makes me feel better.


----------



## grizzlyblake

ambush80 said:


> What if He's not there?  What if children go through stuff like that "just because"?  Makes me feel better.



Makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## ambush80

ddd-shooter said:


> Just a side note to ponder.
> 
> How many here, if controlled by God everyday of their lives, would complain that God needed to mind his own business and let you live your life?
> 
> I can hear it now. "God, just but out and let me do my thing." "I know how to live my life, and you keep holding me back."
> 
> "Why did you create me if you are just gonna go around forcing me to do whatever you want me to!"



Then he would be forcing you to have those thoughts and say those things.  Hmmmmmmm......



Huntinfool said:


> I'll be honest, I haven't read through the thread.  So please forgive that.  I may go back when I have time.
> 
> But here is my answer to your question....I don't know.  But what I do know is this.  The word "winner" necessitates the word "loser".
> 
> All cannot be good all the time for all.



There's good and there's better, then there's better than that.  And the least good of them all is the worst, but it's still good.

I lost my finger, but i still have my hand.  I lost my hand, but i still have my arm.  And so on....  How about no one loses an arm today and we all go fishing?


----------



## ambush80

grizzlyblake said:


> Makes perfect sense to me.



I can live with that too.  Not only is it reaffirmed by my direct observation of how things work, but it is also just.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> I lost my finger, but i still have my hand.  I lost my hand, but i still have my arm.  And so on....



I lost my arm, both legs, my hearing, sight and all other senses....but I still have my salvation and all will be restored soon.

Finite thinking is...well....finite.  It's cool if you don't believe it.  It makes me sad knowing it.  Forget the razor...some day we shall see.


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> You mean, why do I believe that I'm worthy to be alive? Well, I'm sitting here aren't I? I was born wasn't I? I've never done anything that would justify my life being taken away.
> 
> Why do you think you're worthy to talk to me on this forum?



No, that wasn't my question.  You've stated that certain things are deserved (you are the one who continues to harp on life).  My question is, why do you deserve certain things?  What is the basis for your assumption that certain things (non-evil in the context of this thread)?

You've described the process of being born and addressed nothing about deserving one thing or another.  You didn't do anything to earn your birth did you?

My worthiness to talk to you on this forum is of no consequence as I made no assertion that it was something I deserved.


----------



## grizzlyblake

Why do you think that being born must be "deserved?"

To "deserve" something infers that you are "receiving" something. I haven't received anything. I popped out of another human and started walking around. My mother and father took care of me and kept me alive, which was nice, and then I went out in the world and built a life for myself. 

I don't believe I've been the recipient of anything that I deserved. I don't understand why you think that merely existing is some form of "gift." While it's nice that I wasn't born a cockroach it's just the luck of the draw and the way things happen.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> I lost my arm, both legs, my hearing, sight and all other senses....but I still have my salvation and all will be restored soon.
> 
> Finite thinking is...well....finite.  It's cool if you don't believe it.  It makes me sad knowing it.  Forgot the razor...some day we shall see.



If you get there first, let me know what you find.


----------



## ddd-shooter

ambush80 said:


> Then he would be forcing you to have those thoughts and say those things.  Hmmmmmmm......



My point was, you wouldn't be able to think of those thoughts. But in this reality, imagine a situation you atheists want to happen: everything you do must be good, and be exactly how God wants you to do it. 

I would not consider that a fair existence, nor do I think anyone would appreciate what was being done.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> If you get there first, let me know what you find.



10-4.


If I'm able to get in touch, though, you're in a HEAP of trouble....don't ya think?


----------



## grizzlyblake

ddd-shooter said:


> My point was, you wouldn't be able to think of those thoughts. But in this reality, imagine a situation you atheists want to happen: everything you do must be good, and be exactly how God wants you to do it.
> 
> I would not consider that a fair existence, nor do I think anyone would appreciate what was being done.



Fair existence? What about being a textbook christian, and then having your 8 year old daughter kidnapped, raped, and brutally murdered? Is that fair?


----------



## Huntinfool

No....it absolutely is not.


"Fair" has never been promised has it?


----------



## ddd-shooter

grizzlyblake said:


> Fair existence? What about being a textbook christian, and then having your 8 year old daughter kidnapped, raped, and brutally murdered? Is that fair?



It is just as fair as it happening to a non-believers 8 year old daughter.


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> I don't believe I've been the recipient of anything that I deserved. I don't understand why you think that merely existing is some form of "gift."



I never said that it was.  The implication of this thread is that bad things happen and the people they happen to deserve better.  If God were good, they would get better.  My question is now, as it has always been, what is the basis for this belief that humanity is owed better by God than what they get?


----------



## grizzlyblake

I think you've proven my point perfectly. As you have said, humanity does NOT deserve better than what they get. There is no deserving because there is no great magical sky creature granting things out like Santa. Things just happen. People are born, people die. There is no rhyme or reason to it. Some get murdered, some win the lottery. 

The fact that there is this much chaos and disorder pretty much shoots your whole god theory out of the water. 

Now, that being said, I think most sane people would agree that a well behaved member of society experiencing the rape and murder of their child is not that nice.


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> 1. As you have said, humanity does NOT deserve better than what they get.
> 
> 2. The fact that there is this much chaos and disorder pretty much shoots your whole god theory out of the water.
> 
> 3. Now, that being said, I think most sane people would agree that a well behaved member of society experiencing the rape and murder of their child is not that nice.



1. Where did I say that?  

2. No it doesn't.  If you would deal with what I'm saying instead of the strawmen you're making, you might get a better feel for why.

3. Who said it was nice?


----------



## grizzlyblake

I believe you said I should have been destroyed in my sleep last night.

Please line out your question for me.


----------



## CRT

grizzlyblake said:


> I believe you said I should have been destroyed in my sleep last night.



I said that. We all should have been, but God has been gracious to us all.


----------



## Huntinfool

grizzlyblake said:


> The fact that there is this much chaos and disorder pretty much shoots your whole god theory out of the water.




You've never heard of Chaos Theory....have you?


----------



## grizzlyblake

5pointCal said:


> I said that. We all should have been, but God has been gracious to us all.



Yes, so was the great pickup truck monster that lives in my driveway. I need to be thankful that he didn't kill me in my sleep. Come on, you know that's nonsense. You can't credit lack of action to miraculous intervention.


----------



## CRT

grizzlyblake said:


> Yes, so was the great pickup truck monster that lives in my driveway. I need to be thankful that he didn't kill me in my sleep. Come on, you know that's nonsense. You can't credit lack of action to miraculous intervention.



Ha, ha. I didn't say that we were all supposed to die last night but didn't because God saved us from certain death. But in any case, I hope you have a nice weekend.


----------



## grizzlyblake

5pointCal said:


> We all should have been, but God has been gracious to us all.



What did you mean by this then? I guess I misunderstood you.


----------



## CRT

grizzlyblake said:


> What did you mean by this then? I guess I misunderstood you.



I mean that we all deserve to die because we have sinned against Him. Not just you or those who don't believe in Him. All of us. But He has been gracious to give us another day of life. 

I know you don't agree and I can't convince you. I'm just answering your question.


----------



## heavymetalhunter

5pointCal said:


> I mean that we all deserve to die because we have sinned against Him.


so if someone goes into a market and kills 30 or 40 people, its just no big deal since "we all deserve to die"? that is one of the most insane things ive ever heard.


----------



## earl

heavymetalhunter said:


> so if someone goes into a market and kills 30 or 40 people, its just no big deal since "we all deserve to die"? that is one of the most insane things ive ever heard.



There you go again ,trying to take a religious thought to it's logical conclusion.


----------



## heavymetalhunter

earl said:


> There you go again ,trying to take a religious thought to it's logical conclusion.


----------



## gtparts

heavymetalhunter said:


> so if someone goes into a market and kills 30 or 40 people, its just no big deal since "we all deserve to die"? that is one of the most insane things ive ever heard.



I did not see where anyone but you proposed the hypothetical you posted, but I would hesitate to call you insane. The fact that you posited a "red herring" argument speaks to poor debate skills, but not necessarily mental illness.


----------



## CRT

heavymetalhunter said:


> so if someone goes into a market and kills 30 or 40 people, its just no big deal since "we all deserve to die"? that is one of the most insane things ive ever heard.




Don't know about the planet you're from, but here on Earth death is a pretty big deal. Your leap into insanity has nothing to do with anything I've posted, just an extreme exaggeration in order to insult me. In no way have I even hinted that it's "no big deal" when somebody dies. You're just being stupid. But as Forrest said, "Stupid is as stupid does." 

For those with sense: saying that every man deserves to die doesn't mean that when people die it "no big deal". The only religion that has this idea at its "logical conclusion" is atheism. We're all just "accidents", remember? And when we die, it's just because we weren't "fit" enough to survive anymore. But don't worry, it's just the "circle of life", no big deal. How absurd.


----------



## earl

If ''every man deserves to die '' does it matter how or when he dies ?  Evidently those 30 or 40 people didn't meet God's criteria on that particular day.  As far as interjecting atheism into this thread, the Christians are the ones claiming to be unworthy of living. Makes that life God gave you pretty cheap ,don't you think.


----------



## Diogenes

Boy are you folks good at running away and hiding behind the skirts of your dogma . . . 

Grizzlyblake asks some fairly straightforward questions here, and is offered some hugely ridiculous answers.  My only objection to the question is that it is posed in such a way as to be politically correct, and thus invites extensive eruptions of further assumptions.

“Why doesn't god prevent bad things from happening?”   

How about if we remove the conditionals placed in the OP: “Let's assume that god is both omnipotent and omniscient. Let's also assume that his love is unconditional. (Ideas pulled from the Bible).”

All of those conditions are fantasy, and are internally recursive.

The condition of omnipotence is a comic book story of heroes and villains, where the hero suddenly acquires superpowers in order to vanquish evil, leap tall buildings, save the world from Rodan, and the like.  We know that there is no such thing as omnipotence except as a construct to make stories of the supernatural more interesting.

The condition of omniscience is a nice story to tell children about Santa, since we can convince them that Santa knows whether they’ve been naughty or nice, but the truth is, this concept is also a construct designed to engender fear (“What if somebody really could read my mind?  Gasp!), and is perfect nonsense in any sane and rational view of reality.

And unconditional love?  C’mon.  Check out the divorce rate, crime statistics, ongoing wars, abandoned children, starvation, famine, floods, and the local homeless shelters, just to get warmed up.  Even the Bible demonstrates, if only by all of the massive smiting that went on, that this concept serves no useful purpose except as a rhetorical device to try to get your enemies under control.  Think Northern Ireland out, where Christians hate Christians, and speak to unconditional love if you dare.  Another construct, another ideal, another fantasy that does not now nor has ever existed.

So, how about we don’t ‘assume’ things that we know for a fact do not exist, assign those impossible and nonexistent traits to a fictitious entity, and then weave a web of fabricated assumptions based on other assumptions?  

And if we can take this one step further, how does one decide what, exactly, is a ‘bad’ thing that has happened?  I mean, a hurricane comes, wipes out most of a major city, and kills a bunch of folks.  That could be seen as a ‘bad’ thing, I suppose.  But the same folks who rant and rave that such an event is justice handed down from above to punish us for our supposed ‘sins’ will quote, in the same breath, that the story of their ‘god’ sending a flood to wipe out all of his creation is nothing more than a lesson – not a ‘bad’ thing.  

Sorry folks.  ‘Bad’ things don’t happen.  Things happen.  We decide which are ‘bad’ and which are not.  The planet doesn’t care.  The Solar System doesn’t care. The Universe doesn’t care.  When the ‘Bad’ things are on a human-to-human level, even most humans don’t care, but we make laws among ourselves to try to satisfy our sense of right and wrong anyway.  

In order for ‘god’ to prevent ‘bad’ things from happening, there would first need to be some agreement amongst the various inanimate bits of the chaotic reality that makes up our natural environment that such things as, say, volcanic eruptions, tidal waves, asteroid strikes, tornadoes, and bacterial plagues are ‘bad.’   The lack of that sort of cooperation, one might have noticed, is the only consistent theme in natural history.  Nature doesn’t make value judgments when deciding where the next lightning bolt will land, or when the next ice age will begin or end.  Things happen, unguided by any supernatural hand.  

So, unfortunately, and regardless of who decides to write what, and regardless of which language they write it in, and regardless of how fervently folks believe what other folks have written down in ancient manuals of ritualistic superstition, all assumptions are nothing more than that.  Not explanations.  Not facts.  Not eternal truths.  Simple, unwarranted, undemonstrated assumptions.  

‘God’ can’t prevent ‘bad’ things from happening unless there is a ‘god.’  

There isn’t.  So stuff happens.

Not very satisfying, or comforting, I realize, but the only conclusion available that fits with the facts.  Kind of a Sherlock Holmes thing – once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.


----------



## CRT

Diogenes said:


> Boy are you folks good at running away and hiding behind the skirts of your dogma . . .
> 
> Grizzlyblake asks some fairly straightforward questions here, and is offered some hugely ridiculous answers.  My only objection to the question is that it is posed in such a way as to be politically correct, and thus invites extensive eruptions of further assumptions.
> 
> “Why doesn't god prevent bad things from happening?”
> 
> How about if we remove the conditionals placed in the OP: “Let's assume that god is both omnipotent and omniscient. Let's also assume that his love is unconditional. (Ideas pulled from the Bible).”
> 
> All of those conditions are fantasy, and are internally recursive.
> 
> The condition of omnipotence is a comic book story of heroes and villains, where the hero suddenly acquires superpowers in order to vanquish evil, leap tall buildings, save the world from Rodan, and the like.  We know that there is no such thing as omnipotence except as a construct to make stories of the supernatural more interesting.
> 
> The condition of omniscience is a nice story to tell children about Santa, since we can convince them that Santa knows whether they’ve been naughty or nice, but the truth is, this concept is also a construct designed to engender fear (“What if somebody really could read my mind?  Gasp!), and is perfect nonsense in any sane and rational view of reality.
> 
> And unconditional love?  C’mon.  Check out the divorce rate, crime statistics, ongoing wars, abandoned children, starvation, famine, floods, and the local homeless shelters, just to get warmed up.  Even the Bible demonstrates, if only by all of the massive smiting that went on, that this concept serves no useful purpose except as a rhetorical device to try to get your enemies under control.  Think Northern Ireland out, where Christians hate Christians, and speak to unconditional love if you dare.  Another construct, another ideal, another fantasy that does not now nor has ever existed.
> 
> So, how about we don’t ‘assume’ things that we know for a fact do not exist, assign those impossible and nonexistent traits to a fictitious entity, and then weave a web of fabricated assumptions based on other assumptions?
> 
> And if we can take this one step further, how does one decide what, exactly, is a ‘bad’ thing that has happened?  I mean, a hurricane comes, wipes out most of a major city, and kills a bunch of folks.  That could be seen as a ‘bad’ thing, I suppose.  But the same folks who rant and rave that such an event is justice handed down from above to punish us for our supposed ‘sins’ will quote, in the same breath, that the story of their ‘god’ sending a flood to wipe out all of his creation is nothing more than a lesson – not a ‘bad’ thing.
> 
> Sorry folks.  ‘Bad’ things don’t happen.  Things happen.  We decide which are ‘bad’ and which are not.  The planet doesn’t care.  The Solar System doesn’t care. The Universe doesn’t care.  When the ‘Bad’ things are on a human-to-human level, even most humans don’t care, but we make laws among ourselves to try to satisfy our sense of right and wrong anyway.
> 
> In order for ‘god’ to prevent ‘bad’ things from happening, there would first need to be some agreement amongst the various inanimate bits of the chaotic reality that makes up our natural environment that such things as, say, volcanic eruptions, tidal waves, asteroid strikes, tornadoes, and bacterial plagues are ‘bad.’   The lack of that sort of cooperation, one might have noticed, is the only consistent theme in natural history.  Nature doesn’t make value judgments when deciding where the next lightning bolt will land, or when the next ice age will begin or end.  Things happen, unguided by any supernatural hand.
> 
> So, unfortunately, and regardless of who decides to write what, and regardless of which language they write it in, and regardless of how fervently folks believe what other folks have written down in ancient manuals of ritualistic superstition, all assumptions are nothing more than that.  Not explanations.  Not facts.  Not eternal truths.  Simple, unwarranted, undemonstrated assumptions.
> 
> ‘God’ can’t prevent ‘bad’ things from happening unless there is a ‘god.’
> 
> There isn’t.  So stuff happens.
> 
> Not very satisfying, or comforting, I realize, but the only conclusion available that fits with the facts.  Kind of a Sherlock Holmes thing – once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.



There ya go. When 30 - 40 people are killed in a market place, it's no big deal. Just life. Stuff happens.

Thanks for being honest Dio.


----------



## Huntinfool

please don't feed the trol Cal.


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> Please line out your question for me.



Sure...

There are several ways to pose this discussion.  As I see it here, I read that:

1. Christians say God is good.
2. Christians say God is all powerful.
3. Someone who is all good and all powerful should want to prevent all evil.
4. There is evil in the world

Therefore-
C: The Christian view of God is internally inconsistent.

In essence, you and I are disagreeing on point #3.  Your support for point #3 is that those who experience evil deserve better than what they get if God is all good.  My question is, within the Christian worldview, where do you get that they deserve better?  If the point is that Christianity is internally inconsistent, you must use Christianity's definitions of good and evil because it is Christianity that defines God as good.  You've got to understand what they're talking about if you're trying to prove that their views are internally inconsistent.

Now, that's different than you saying that you reject their definitions.  In the case that you reject their definitions (which I assume is the case), I would ask you how you can define evil?  What makes something objectively good or objectively evil?  Where do your definitions come from and why do you adopt them?


----------



## gtparts

earl said:


> If ''every man deserves to die '' does it matter how or when he dies ?  Evidently those 30 or 40 people didn't meet God's criteria on that particular day.  As far as interjecting atheism into this thread, the Christians are the ones claiming to be unworthy of living. Makes that life God gave you pretty cheap ,don't you think.



We (humans) are the ones who cheapened it. In many cases God is allowing us to live with the standards we have set. There is a lesson to be learned here...God's way is the best way.


----------



## earl

''God's way is the best way.''
Since I continue to see where Christians say it is impossible to live as God commanded, isn't that an oxymoron ?


----------



## johnnylightnin

earl said:


> ''God's way is the best way.''
> Since I continue to see where Christians say it is impossible to live as God commanded, isn't that an oxymoron ?



It would be if God's way was legalistic perfection...but alas, it is not.


----------



## Diogenes

“In many cases God is allowing us to live with the standards we have set. “

Is he now?

It is consistently astounding to see how many folks know what their God is thinking, doing, allowing, disallowing, and considering.  It is almost like that God was here to speak for himself, to see how quickly his adherents are able to put words and interpretations of just about everything on his plate . . .

And, please – “We (humans) are the ones who cheapened it [life] . . .”   Um?  So life was much more dear when, in your various stories, your god was wiping it out willy-nilly just to make a point?  

Among many others – 
Exodus: 9:14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.    
9:15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth.  
9:16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Yeah.  That god of yours placed a pretty high value on his creation, according to your own Book . . .

C’mon.  And be serious – can you really maintain, in nearly the same breath, that we need to live according to God’s Standards, while saying that the same God let us make our own standards?  How can that be?  And don’t weasel into that nonsense about free-will being some sort of ‘gift’ provided from above.  I counter that by saying that freewill is a natural fact of existence, and has allowed Man to create Gods.  Not the other way around. 

And this?????  “It would be [an oxymoron] if God's way was legalistic perfection...but alas, it is not.”   What????    Your view of your God’s Law is that it is not legalistic, nor perfect?  I agree.  Truth is that the supposition of ‘God’s Law’ is situational, ever changing, engenders no clear agreement, is interpreted and rationalized at will out of all possible context, and is nothing more than a human construct designed to achieve ends that are more political than morally absolute.  

And by the way, since it seems to be pretty well agreed and oddly ‘explained’ that your God either cannot or will not prevent ‘bad’ things from happening, how is it that Mankind, supposedly Created in ‘His’ image, is similarly unable or unwilling?  Is your God also bi-polar?  Did He ‘Create’ good people and bad people?  That might have been a bit silly, unless we were actually designed only to be avatars in a really giant cosmic video game . . .


----------



## Diogenes

And, Huntinfool?  Backatcha pal.  Got anything other than insulting opposing thought?  Anything?


----------



## Huntinfool

Diogenes said:


> And, Huntinfool?  Backatcha pal.  Got anything other than insulting opposing thought?  Anything?



Nope....just pointing out the obvious buddy.   If you want to call it an insult, I certainly can't stop ya.

Post something other than angry vitriol and I'll start addressing the merits of anything useful you post. 

What's good for the goose is, indeed, good for the gander....is it not?


----------



## gtparts

> C’mon. And be serious – can you really maintain, in nearly the same breath, that we need to live according to God’s Standards, while saying that the same God let us make our own standards? How can that be?



Just because He allows us to choose our standards does not mean that His standards for human conduct are not  superior. We settle for one scoop in a cup; He offers three scoops in a cone...with sprinkles.

As for the comment by johnnylightnin, his point was that God's law is not legalistic. It is the yardstick by which all can see their shortcomings and their need for redemption.

But, then you knew that all along. You just like to argue semantics and sentence construction. You like to reword and twist the posts of others, yet when you are confronted on points for which you have no defense, you conveniently do not respond. Clever? Nope, just transparent!


----------



## Diogenes

I see.  So when you say – ““We (humans) are the ones who cheapened it [life],” And I ask you to qualify that statement in light of the obvious writings in your own Book, and you duck that in favor of pointing out your view of my personal flaws – um . . . that is known as engaging in a discussion?

“. . . yet when you are confronted on points for which you have no defense, you conveniently do not respond. Clever? Nope, just transparent!”

Indeed. 

(Huntinfool.  Huntin. Fool.  Huntinfool. Has a certain, how do you say? Je ne sais quoi . . .


----------



## Diogenes

I see.  So when you say – ““We (humans) are the ones who cheapened it [life],” And I ask you to qualify that statement in light of the obvious writings in your own Book, and you duck that in favor of pointing out your view of my personal flaws – um . . . that is known as engaging in a discussion?

“. . . yet when you are confronted on points for which you have no defense, you conveniently do not respond. Clever? Nope, just transparent!”

Indeed. 

(Huntinfool.  Huntin. Fool.  Huntinfool. Has a certain, how do you say? Je ne sais quoi . . .


----------



## ddd-shooter

Diogenes said:


> I see.  So when you say – ““We (humans) are the ones who cheapened it [life],” And I ask you to qualify that statement in light of the obvious writings in your own Book, and you duck that in favor of pointing out your view of my personal flaws – um . . . that is known as engaging in a discussion?
> 
> “. . . yet when you are confronted on points for which you have no defense, you conveniently do not respond. Clever? Nope, just transparent!”



We do need to live by God's standards. 
He gave us a choice to choose his standards or rebel. We rebelled. 

If I were an experienced mechanic and I knew how to rebuild a transmission and told you how and you decided to not follow my instructions; can you not look at the failure around you and declare "By golly, I can see clearly now that I should have listened?"


----------



## Huntinfool

Sad little man.

Think that up all by yourself?  




Speaking of "fool"...

How great are your works, O Lord!
Your thoughts are very deep!
The stupid man cannot know; 
the fool cannot understand this:
that though the wicked sprout like grass
and all evildoers flourish,
they are doomed to destruction forever;


----------



## grizzlyblake

ddd-shooter said:


> We do need to live by God's standards.
> He gave us a choice to choose his standards or rebel. We rebelled.
> 
> If I were an experienced mechanic and I knew how to rebuild a transmission and told you how and you decided to not follow my instructions; can you not look at the failure around you and declare "By golly, I can see clearly now that I should have listened?"



So when you do everything "by the book" and follow all the instructions, and the transmission still fails, what is your explanation there? It's just god's will, or for the greater good, or some other nonsense?

If that's indeed the case, why waste your time following the instructions when they seem to have zero effect on the final outcome?

I guess when you're asking questions dealing with made up fantasy, you'll get answers that are just as fantastic. I'm absolutely amazed at the non-investigative, blind following of some fairy tale that makes no sense anyway.


----------



## CRT

grizzlyblake said:


> So when you do everything "by the book" and follow all the instructions, and the transmission still fails, what is your explanation there? It's just god's will, or for the greater good, or some other nonsense?
> 
> If that's indeed the case, why waste your time following the instructions when they seem to have zero effect on the final outcome?
> 
> I guess when you're asking questions dealing with made up fantasy, you'll get answers that are just as fantastic. I'm absolutely amazed at the non-investigative, blind following of some fairy tale that makes no sense anyway.



You sound like me when I got that new baseball bat. I was so excited. I was going to hit better than Babe Ruth. Then after I struck out a few times, my faith in that bat began to waver. The final straw was when I foul tipped a ball onto my foot and thought I broke my toe. It hurt so bad I threw the bat away. Stupid bat.


----------



## Israel

For those of us who are believers, the process of God making man in his image and likeness is still taking place.
This is not a matter of species, but of maturity.

It does not yet appear what we shall be...does not mean we do not have the spirit of God, and therefore are any less his sons...but that the work of that spirit, when fully accomplished for God's will and purpose, will show the coming forth of what is like him, fully grown...and as the scripture speaks...a perfect man. (all of creation groans)
The unbeliever is also a part of a body, and if he remains so, will also be revealed with the revelation of the man of sin.

Whom the Lord destroys with the brightness of his coming...

for we know that when He shall appear (the one the believer looks for) we shall be like him...for we shall see him as he is...

Now every and anyone that has no desire to see the Lord as he is...well...they go with their head.
Believers, shall go with theirs.

God makes no mistakes.


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> Before anyone starts screaming that I'm just pot-stirring I'll bear my feelings here and say that this issue is the number one reason that I no longer believe in god. Therefore this is a very serious question that I have and as of yet I have not found an answer that actually addresses the two options.



I was happy when I read this but...



grizzlyblake said:


> I'm absolutely amazed at the non-investigative, blind following of some fairy tale that makes no sense anyway.



This sounds just like pot-stirring to me.

Regardless, I've reworded my question above.  What do you think of it?


----------



## grizzlyblake

5pointCal said:


> You sound like me when I got that new baseball bat. I was so excited. I was going to hit better than Babe Ruth. Then after I struck out a few times, my faith in that bat began to waver. The final straw was when I foul tipped a ball onto my foot and thought I broke my toe. It hurt so bad I threw the bat away. Stupid bat.



So you're saying that all the wonderful incredible things that the bat was promised to do were, in fact, not true? That in reality the wild claims that were made about the bat had no effect on your actual situation?

I find humor in people that continue to use the bat regardless of how it seems to have no effect on the "game." Even when the magic bat lets them down they say that it's just "the bat's will" or "for the greater good" or a "lesson."


----------



## CRT

grizzlyblake said:


> So you're saying that all the wonderful incredible things that the bat was promised to do were, in fact, not true? That in reality the wild claims that were made about the bat had no effect on your actual situation?
> 
> I find humor in people that continue to use the bat regardless of how it seems to have no effect on the "game." Even when the magic bat lets them down they say that it's just "the bat's will" or "for the greater good" or a "lesson."



I find equal humor in the people who blame the bat for what's wrong in their lives when they are the ones who can't hit. Of course it's a lot easier and less hurtful to our pride to do that, than to admit our own weakness.


----------



## grizzlyblake

johnnylightnin said:


> Sure...
> 
> There are several ways to pose this discussion.  As I see it here, I read that:
> 
> 1. Christians say God is good.
> 2. Christians say God is all powerful.
> 3. Someone who is all good and all powerful should want to prevent all evil.
> 4. There is evil in the world
> 
> Therefore-
> C: The Christian view of God is internally inconsistent.
> 
> In essence, you and I are disagreeing on point #3.  Your support for point #3 is that those who experience evil deserve better than what they get if God is all good.  My question is, within the Christian worldview, where do you get that they deserve better?  If the point is that Christianity is internally inconsistent, you must use Christianity's definitions of good and evil because it is Christianity that defines God as good.  You've got to understand what they're talking about if you're trying to prove that their views are internally inconsistent.
> 
> Now, that's different than you saying that you reject their definitions.  In the case that you reject their definitions (which I assume is the case), I would ask you how you can define evil?  What makes something objectively good or objectively evil?  Where do your definitions come from and why do you adopt them?



Thanks. Good and evil are social constructs based on survival in a group. If you go around raping, killing, and stealing you will most likely be ostrasized from the group, which, in the old days guaranteed your non-survival. By doing good things, or helping others, you were more likely to be accepted deeper into the group and receive help from others. There are actual physical responses that we still have today that are based on this. If you do something foolish in front of others, your face will get red, which signifies that you realize you have done something wrong and it is not your normal behavior. There are many physical responses that are based on ensuring your survival in a group. In short, that's where the "good and evil" idea comes from.


----------



## grizzlyblake

5pointCal said:


> I find equal humor in the people who blame the bat for what's wrong in their lives when they are the ones who can't hit. Of course it's a lot easier and less hurtful to our pride to do that, than to admit our own weakness.



Again, you're confirming that human actions can be credited to humans, not magical things. If the bat does not have any effect on your life, why do you continue to worship the bat? You have stated that the things that happen in life cannot be attributed to the bat (obvious metaphor for god), and that you, as a human, are the only one in control. Right?


----------



## jmharris23

Blake, 

Do you think that there are people on this earth who nothing bad ever happens to them? What if there is no God? Would bad things still happen? 

Why are you blaming God for the "bad things"?


----------



## Jeff Phillips

grizzlyblake said:


> So when you do everything "by the book" and follow all the instructions, and the transmission still fails, what is your explanation there? It's just god's will, or for the greater good, or some other nonsense?
> 
> If that's indeed the case, why waste your time following the instructions when they seem to have zero effect on the final outcome?
> 
> I guess when you're asking questions dealing with made up fantasy, you'll get answers that are just as fantastic. I'm absolutely amazed at the non-investigative, blind following of some fairy tale that makes no sense anyway.



I can't answer your questions, especially when you do not want them answered. But I can offer my unique perspective.

I am a believer saved by the grace of God. My wife and my children are also saved.

In 1996 my 9 year old daughter was diagnosed with a very rare form of lukemia. She was diagnosed in June and died December 3rd of '96. Ginny was saved, she accepted Christ when she was 7 and was baptised. She suffered greatly before she passed and I had to turn off the respirator at the end. I was mad at God!

Why would God allow a family that is at the Church everytime they unlock the doors, going on mission trips, teaching Sunday School, etc to go through a tradgedy like this?

I have no answers for me or for you. But I can tell you this, on the 3rd Sunday in January of 1997, seven people who were not in Church but were dear friends of my family, walked the isle and accepted Christ. It was not orchastrated or planned. Each one said they had accepted Christ because of the way he had carried my family through that tradgedy.

I'll have questions when I join Ginny in Heaven, but for now I'll have to accept the idea that I went through the loss of my child to save some of God's children, just like the story of Jesus on a much smaller scale!


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> In short, that's where the "good and evil" idea comes from.



So they are just ideas.  Rape is only wrong because it leads to being ostracized?  Running away in battle is reprehensible because the guys will call you on it?  What if you were to rape a girl who couldn't communicate with anyone?  She could be raped and no one would know about it.  Is that rape wrong?  If good and evil are just social constructs, I don't see how it is.


----------



## jmharris23

Jeff Phillips said:


> I can't answer your questions, especially when you do not want them answered. But I can offer my unique perspective.
> 
> I am a believer saved by the grace of God. My wife and my children are also saved.
> 
> In 1996 my 9 year old daughter was diagnosed with a very rare form of lukemia. She was diagnosed in June and died December 3rd of '96. Ginny was saved, she accepted Christ when she was 7 and was baptised. She suffered greatly before she passed and I had to turn off the respirator at the end. I was mad at God!
> 
> Why would God allow a family that is at the Church everytime they unlock the doors, going on mission trips, teaching Sunday School, etc to go through a tradgedy like this?
> 
> I have no answers for me or for you. But I can tell you this, on the 3rd Sunday in January of 1997, seven people who were not in Church but were dear friends of my family, walked the isle and accepted Christ. It was not orchastrated or planned. Each one said they had accepted Christ because of the way he had carried my family through that tradgedy.
> 
> I'll have questions when I join Ginny in Heaven, but for now I'll have to accept the idea that I went through the loss of my child to save some of God's children, just like the story of Jesus on a much smaller scale!



Thank you for sharing this. This my friends is what we call faith


----------



## CRT

grizzlyblake said:


> Again, you're confirming that human actions can be credited to humans, not magical things. If the bat does not have any effect on your life, why do you continue to worship the bat? You have stated that the things that happen in life cannot be attributed to the bat (obvious metaphor for god), and that you, as a human, are the only one in control. Right?



Actually, the bat is a metaphor for our mistaken humanistic ideals about God. Man wants to come to God on man's terms for man's selfish desires, but when God doesn't bow down and worship man, man thinks the problem is with God. Until man can admit that he is the problem, he will blame the bat instead of seeking a hitting instructor.


----------



## CRT

Jeff Phillips said:


> I can't answer your questions, especially when you do not want them answered. But I can offer my unique perspective.
> 
> I am a believer saved by the grace of God. My wife and my children are also saved.
> 
> In 1996 my 9 year old daughter was diagnosed with a very rare form of lukemia. She was diagnosed in June and died December 3rd of '96. Ginny was saved, she accepted Christ when she was 7 and was baptised. She suffered greatly before she passed and I had to turn off the respirator at the end. I was mad at God!
> 
> Why would God allow a family that is at the Church everytime they unlock the doors, going on mission trips, teaching Sunday School, etc to go through a tradgedy like this?
> 
> I have no answers for me or for you. But I can tell you this, on the 3rd Sunday in January of 1997, seven people who were not in Church but were dear friends of my family, walked the isle and accepted Christ. It was not orchastrated or planned. Each one said they had accepted Christ because of the way he had carried my family through that tradgedy.
> 
> I'll have questions when I join Ginny in Heaven, but for now I'll have to accept the idea that I went through the loss of my child to save some of God's children, just like the story of Jesus on a much smaller scale!




Wow!! AMEN!!


----------



## grizzlyblake

johnnylightnin said:


> So they are just ideas.  Rape is only wrong because it leads to being ostracized?  Running away in battle is reprehensible because the guys will call you on it?  What if you were to rape a girl who couldn't communicate with anyone?  She could be raped and no one would know about it.  Is that rape wrong?  If good and evil are just social constructs, I don't see how it is.



We are merely highly developed animals. That's just the way it is. Right and wrong are social constructs. Look at right and wrong around the world and you will find vast differences among different cultures. Just like any other animal, you have a genetic drive to survive and produce as many offspring as possible (goes against man's monogamy construct, which causes plenty of problems). Group survival is merely a more highly developed, effective way to ensure you pass your genetic material on, ensuring the procreation of the species. 

Most basic ideas of right and wrong are present in cultures all over the world, regardless of religious belief, and have existed since well before man wrote the Bible.


----------



## grizzlyblake

jmharris23 said:


> Blake,
> 
> Do you think that there are people on this earth who nothing bad ever happens to them? What if there is no God? Would bad things still happen?
> 
> Why are you blaming God for the "bad things"?



I am NOT blaming god. I am blaming man. I am questioning god doesn't step in and control man's actions.


----------



## grizzlyblake

grizzlyblake said:


> We are merely highly developed animals. That's just the way it is. Right and wrong are social constructs. Look at right and wrong around the world and you will find vast differences among different cultures. Just like any other animal, you have a genetic drive to survive and produce as many offspring as possible (goes against man's monogamy construct, which causes plenty of problems). Group survival is merely a more highly developed, effective way to ensure you pass your genetic material on, ensuring the procreation of the species.
> 
> Most basic ideas of right and wrong are present in cultures all over the world, regardless of religious belief, and have existed since well before man wrote the Bible.



I'll preempt some questions here and clarify that BASIC ideas of right and wrong are present in all cultures, while REFINED ideas of right and wrong are different. Some cultures will kill you for trying to shake someone's hand, but would also kill you for trying to rape someone.


----------



## addictedtodeer

grizzlyblake said:


> I would like to hear some straight forward answers to this one.
> 
> Let's assume that god is both omnipotent and omniscient. Let's also assume that his love is unconditional. (Ideas pulled from the Bible)
> 
> Now, we are all aware that the world is full of horrible things, with innocent people being killed daily, children suffering, families starving, stabbings, shootings, rapes, the list goes on and on. Based on the arguments I've seen on here that Christianity is the majority belief in the world, let's say that 60% of the people involved in these horrible events are Christians. (Just a guess)
> 
> My question is: Why does god not prevent these things from happening to people? If his love is unconditional it should cover everyone, but if he only loves his worshipers the 60% should be protected at the least.
> 
> Here are the choices to explain this:
> 
> A) God is omniscient and omnipotent, but is not caring enough to step in and prevent these things from happening to his followers.
> 
> B) God does care enough to protect his followers, but is not omniscient or omnipotent, and therefore not a god after all.
> 
> 
> Before anyone starts screaming that I'm just pot-stirring I'll bear my feelings here and say that this issue is the number one reason that I no longer believe in god. Therefore this is a very serious question that I have and as of yet I have not found an answer that actually addresses the two options.



First you are assuming that we deserve good things from God.
This is based on the assumption that humans are innocent before God. You can not find that in scripture, just a few examples from OT and NT:
Genesis 6:5  _The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. _

Gen 8:21  _And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done._

Psalm 51:5  _Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. _

Isaiah 64:6  _We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. _
Isaiah 64:7  _There is no one who calls upon your name, who rouses himself to take hold of you; for you have hidden your face from us, and have made us melt in the hand of our iniquities. _

Matthew 15:19  _For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. _
Matthew 15:20  _These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." _

Rom 3:10-18  _as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." 
"Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, 
and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." 
_

Ephesians 2:1-3  _And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- 
among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. _

Scripture is clear man is not innocent before God but guilty, the actual question should  be:
Why does God ever allow good things to happen to rebellious creatures who do not acknowledge him?


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> We are merely highly developed animals. That's just the way it is. Right and wrong are social constructs. Look at right and wrong around the world and you will find vast differences among different cultures. Just like any other animal, you have a genetic drive to survive and produce as many offspring as possible (goes against man's monogamy construct, which causes plenty of problems). Group survival is merely a more highly developed, effective way to ensure you pass your genetic material on, ensuring the procreation of the species.
> 
> Most basic ideas of right and wrong are present in cultures all over the world, regardless of religious belief, and have existed since well before man wrote the Bible.



Okay....so is the rape of a person who can't communicate what happened and therefore cannot threaten your ability to survive objectively wrong?


----------



## jmharris23

grizzlyblake said:


> I am NOT blaming god. I am blaming man. I am questioning god doesn't step in and control man's actions.



Why do you think He should do that?


----------



## grizzlyblake

jmharris23 said:


> Why do you think He should do that?



I don't think he should and I don't see that he does. It sounds like most here think that god is justified in not stepping in. So, why are there always petty prayer requests asking god to step in and do something about your daily life?


----------



## grizzlyblake

johnnylightnin said:


> Okay....so is the rape of a person who can't communicate what happened and therefore cannot threaten your ability to survive objectively wrong?



You're stretching this now and you know it. If a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it...


Clearly that situation would have no effect on the rapist's survival. In this situation you (man) are creating the "idea" of it being wrong, because it is a sad thing. That did not have to come from god. Go to a remote villate that has never heard of god and ask them the same question. You will probably find out that they think it is wrong also, but have come to that conclusion without the help of the christian god.


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> You're stretching this now and you know it.



No I'm not, I'm merely carrying out your idea of morality to its logical end.  It sounds as if you would say that there are moral absolutes that are universally (more or less) recognized.

You said that the rape that didn't hinder survival was still wrong, so I'm led to believe that these absolutes transcend their propensity to promote survival.  Do you disagree?  

Now that I reread your post, you said I created the idea.  So, is it sad or is it wrong?  Do you think there is anything objectively wrong with it?

Why is it sad?


----------



## ddd-shooter

grizzlyblake said:


> So when you do everything "by the book" and follow all the instructions, and the transmission still fails, what is your explanation there? It's just god's will, or for the greater good, or some other nonsense?
> 
> If that's indeed the case, why waste your time following the instructions when they seem to have zero effect on the final outcome?



As far as I know, only one man ever followed the instructions perfectly.


----------



## jmharris23

grizzlyblake said:


> I don't think he should and I don't see that he does. It sounds like most here think that god is justified in not stepping in. So, why are there always petty prayer requests asking god to step in and do something about your daily life?



I am confused, if you don't think he should then why did you start this thread by saying you choose not to believe in him because he doesn't step in and instead chooses to allow evil? 

As far as prayer goes, we pray because we believe he does step in when he so chooses to do so. 

We also believe that God stops way more evil than you seem to think he does. The bible teachers were it not for God's interaction in the world there would be way more evil than we already see. 

So why does He allow what He does? Because it fits His greater purpose. It's called the Sovereignty of God. 

Of course I totally expect you to not understand this and in some way belittle believers because of this belief. So go ahead


----------



## grizzlyblake

Think of it this way - if the group found out about this activity, how would they react? The group is defining the right and wrong, not the lone rapist. Let's say they all agree on the fact that "rape is bad." This most likely doesn't exclude certain obscure situations of rape. 

Again, plenty of people share ideas of right and wrong without the intervention of the christian god.


----------



## jmharris23

grizzlyblake said:


> Again, plenty of people share ideas of right and wrong without the intervention of the christian god.



What makes you think that it is not the Christian God that gives them the idea of right and wrong?


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> Think of it this way - if the group found out about this activity, how would they react? The group is defining the right and wrong, not the lone rapist. Let's say they all agree on the fact that "rape is bad." This most likely doesn't exclude certain obscure situations of rape.
> 
> Again, plenty of people share ideas of right and wrong without the intervention of the christian god.



I'm not asking what the group thinks.  We all know what the group would think, that doesn't matter.  I'm asking you.  You've said that right and wrong are constructs to promote survival.  The rape of someone who can't communicate the rape does not hinder survival.  So, in your understanding of morality, that rape is not wrong.  You said it's sad.  Why is it sad?  It doesn't hinder the rapists ability to survive?  What makes it sad?


----------



## Jeff Phillips

grizzlyblake said:


> I don't think he should and I don't see that he does. It sounds like most here think that god is justified in not stepping in. So, why are there always petty prayer requests asking god to step in and do something about your daily life?



Sometimes God does step in and sometimes he allows things to run their natural course. There are miracles every day!


----------



## grizzlyblake

jmharris23 said:


> I am confused, if you don't think he should then why did you start this thread by saying you choose not to believe in him because he doesn't step in and instead chooses to allow evil?
> 
> As far as prayer goes, we pray because we believe he does step in when he so chooses to do so.
> 
> We also believe that God stops way more evil than you seem to think he does. The bible teachers were it not for God's interaction in the world there would be way more evil than we already see.
> 
> So why does He allow what He does? Because it fits His greater purpose. It's called the Sovereignty of God.
> 
> Of course I totally expect you to not understand this and in some way belittle believers because of this belief. So go ahead



That's fine. Thanks for the explanation.

I was posing the question for the sake of learning. I wanted some hard answers to why there is so much suffering in the world, allowed by an omnipotent god. If he is omnipotent and logical, he should step in.

My personal experience is that god does not step in, prayer is a futile activity, and therefore I have come to the conclusion that I don't believe in god because of this. I must have misspoken when saying that I don't think god should step in, of course I think he should, but in reality there is no stepping in, which is what I was getting at.


----------



## grizzlyblake

jmharris23 said:


> What makes you think that it is not the Christian God that gives them the idea of right and wrong?



If the people have never heard of the christian god or seen a Bible, how would they get the information from the christian god? If they're getting it directly into their brains, what's the use of a Bible or missionaries?


----------



## ddd-shooter

grizzlyblake said:


> We are merely highly developed animals. That's just the way it is. Right and wrong are social constructs. Look at right and wrong around the world and you will find vast differences among different cultures. Just like any other animal, you have a genetic drive to survive and produce as many offspring as possible (goes against man's monogamy construct, which causes plenty of problems). Group survival is merely a more highly developed, effective way to ensure you pass your genetic material on, ensuring the procreation of the species.
> 
> Most basic ideas of right and wrong are present in cultures all over the world, regardless of religious belief, and have existed since well before man wrote the Bible.



So are you saying there are abolute rights or wrongs? 

So if there is a society where the men stay together and women stay together and it is the norm to rape the women, I am right to do so because otherwise I would be straying from the norm of the male group and would be ostracized from said group. 

How about in Nazi Germany? As long as I want to continue to live and support my family, I need to support the Nazi regime. So, supporting the Nazi regime is right.


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> If the people have never heard of the christian god or seen a Bible, how would they get the information from the christian god? If they're getting it directly into their brains, what's the use of a Bible or missionaries?



Do a google search on "common grace".


----------



## ddd-shooter

grizzlyblake said:


> My personal experience is that god does not step in, prayer is a futile activity, and therefore I have come to the conclusion that I don't believe in god because of this. I must have misspoken when saying that I don't think god should step in, of course I think he should, but in reality there is no stepping in, which is what I was getting at.



I can hear it now. 
"God, why don't you butt out and let me do my own thing. You are so unfair to always go around and make us your slaves.
Why can't I do what I want to do? It is my life!"


----------



## grizzlyblake

ddd-shooter said:


> So are you saying there are abolute rights or wrongs?
> 
> So if there is a society where the men stay together and women stay together and it is the norm to rape the women, I am right to do so because otherwise I would be straying from the norm of the male group and would be ostracized from said group.



Interesting question. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a society like that. I'll have to look into it.



ddd-shooter said:


> How about in Nazi Germany? As long as I want to continue to live and support my family, I need to support the Nazi regime. So, supporting the Nazi regime is right.



I would say that this plays on the basic idea that killing for no reason is wrong. That idea existed long before the Nazi regime came into power, so most people would see their activities as wrong.


----------



## johnnylightnin

grizzlyblake said:


> I was posing the question for the sake of learning. I wanted some hard answers to why there is so much suffering in the world, allowed by an omnipotent god. If he is omnipotent and logical, he should step in.



I think your issue is that you're asking the question about some ambiguous omnipotent god.  The God you've described doesn't sound like the God described in the Bible.  If you really want to learn about why that God allows suffering, you need to read the book of Job and Romans 9...at least.

The above quote indicates that you see internal inconsistency in the idea of an omnipotent and good God that allows suffering.  Read those books and let me know what you think.  If you can't find your Bible, let me know and I'll send you one.  Or, you can always go to biblegateway.com.  I'd read it in the NASB or the ESV, but any version will do.

If you don't want to read all of Job, I'll give you a synopsis and then you can just read chapters 38-42.  Basically, God and Satan were conversing and God said that Job was righteous.  Satan said that Job was only righteous because God had blessed him.  God told Satan he was wrong and Satan called him on it.  He said, "Okay, let me mess with him a little." (lose translation...to say the least).  After the devil gets done messing with Job, Job finally loses it and demands to speak with God about the injustice he's endured.  That's a good enough background to get you started in Chapter 38.


----------



## johnnylightnin

johnnylightnin said:


> I'm not asking what the group thinks.  We all know what the group would think, that doesn't matter.  I'm asking you.  You've said that right and wrong are constructs to promote survival.  The rape of someone who can't communicate the rape does not hinder survival.  So, in your understanding of morality, that rape is not wrong.  You said it's sad.  Why is it sad?  It doesn't hinder the rapists ability to survive?  What makes it sad?





ddd-shooter said:


> So are you saying there are abolute rights or wrongs?
> 
> So if there is a society where the men stay together and women stay together and it is the norm to rape the women, I am right to do so because otherwise I would be straying from the norm of the male group and would be ostracized from said group.
> 
> How about in Nazi Germany? As long as I want to continue to live and support my family, I need to support the Nazi regime. So, supporting the Nazi regime is right.





grizzlyblake said:


> Interesting question. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a society like that. I'll have to look into it.
> 
> I would say that this plays on the basic idea that killing for no reason is wrong. That idea existed long before the Nazi regime came into power, so most people would see their activities as wrong.



The question is, where does this idea that anything is wrong come from?  Is there such a thing as objective truth?

I'd be interested in your answer to the first post quoted in this post.  What makes something that doesn't hinder your survival sad in a naturalistic worldview?


----------



## ddd-shooter

grizzlyblake said:


> I would say that this plays on the basic idea that killing for no reason is wrong. That idea existed long before the Nazi regime came into power, so most people would see their activities as wrong.



The Nazis had their reasons. Eugenics. They believed they were getting rid of the weaker of the species and serving the purpose of making the "group" stronger. The classic "betterment of the group" scenario. Kill all of the "useless mouths" that feed off the rest of the group.

Sound familiar?


----------



## ddd-shooter

grizzlyblake said:


> I would say that this plays on the basic idea that killing for no reason is wrong. That idea existed long before the Nazi regime came into power, so most people would see their activities as wrong.



Oh, and what of those societies who conduct human sacrifices to their Gods? 
As long as it keeps me in that group, I am right in killing another human as long as I do not get shunned. In this society, it is not a "basic idea" that killing is wrong. 

Again, I wonder why you say "most people?" It does not matter how "most people" see their activities. There is no right and wrong, just the best way to stay in the group. Being a member of the Nazi party was the best way to stay in the group. Plus, Eugenics was going to make the "group" the strongest on the planet, so you were also becoming the fittest, and we need the fittest to procreate.


----------



## ambush80

What do you want, Grizz?  You want the Christians to admit that their God makes no sense?  Well they won't.  They may admit that He doesn't make any Earthly sense, but they're not concerned with that.  

Believing in God allows one to find a reason for bad things happening to good people.  Do you need a reason, personally?  

I understand where they are coming from.   It gives them comfort to think that God is at the helm, making decisions toward the greater good (we will never know what that is).  Trust and Obey, Trust and Obey, trust and obey.......

I definitely know where you are coming from.  God doesn't make sense (he doesn't have to).  He's not kind or just by any measure that you understand (his measures are not your measures).  No matter what you do, or pray for, or not pray for, things just keep chuggin' along.    They sure do.     

The bigger issue to me is:  If one predisposes one's self to either way of believing,  what are the ramifications of how they interact with the the World here and now?  I'm currently forming hypotheses.


----------



## CRT

ambush80 said:


> The bigger issue to me is:  If one predisposes one's self to either way of believing,  what are the ramifications of how they interact with the the World here and now?  I'm currently forming hypotheses.



Now that will be worth discussing. And I can't wait to hear your hypothesis.


----------



## jmharris23

5pointCal said:


> Now that will be worth discussing. And I can't wait to hear your hypothesis.



Me too!


----------



## johnnylightnin

ambush80 said:


> I understand where they are coming from.   It gives them comfort to think that God is at the helm, making decisions toward the greater good (we will never know what that is).



I can only speak for myself, but I'm not a Christian because it gives me comfort about bad things in the world.  I'm a Christian because I genuinely believe it's the truth.  If it's not the truth, I take no comfort in how it makes me "feel" because I've been deceived.  Like Paul said, if Christ hasn't been raised, then Christians are to be pitied above all men.  

Pascal's wager is interesting, but I'm just not sure how it jives with what Paul said.


----------



## ambush80

5pointCal said:


> Now that will be worth discussing. And I can't wait to hear your hypothesis.



I will get some thoughts together.  Have you got any?



johnnylightnin said:


> I can only speak for myself, but I'm not a Christian because it gives me comfort about bad things in the world.



But I imagine that you would offer to someone grieving that "God has a plan and a higher purpose that we don't understand" as solace.



johnnylightnin said:


> I'm a Christian because I genuinely believe it's the truth.  If it's not the truth, I take no comfort in how it makes me "feel" because I've been deceived.  Like Paul said, if Christ hasn't been raised, then Christians are to be pitied above all men.
> 
> Pascal's wager is interesting, but I'm just not sure how it jives with what Paul said.



Along with all the other Deists (except the one's that were right).


----------



## johnnylightnin

ambush80 said:


> But I imagine that you would offer to someone grieving that "God has a plan and a higher purpose that we don't understand" as solace.



Only because I think it's true.  I've heard pastors say things like, "God couldn't have stopped what happened" and that may be more comforting to some, but I think it's 100% false, so I would never say it.


----------



## CRT

ambush80 said:


> I will get some thoughts together.  Have you got any?



Just off the top of my head I think of the missionaries who have literally given their lives for the people they went to serve. If you ever get a chance, look up Lottie Moon. She is just one example. I can't think of one atheist or agnostic who has given his/her life for humanity. If there is one, please tell me because I would love to look into their life.

I guess my shooting-from-the-hip hypothesis is: Those who believe in the God of the Bible and obey what the Bible teaches (trust and obey)are more inclined to be self-sacrificing for the good of others in the here and now than those who do not believe. Those who believe they have been given much by God are more likely to give much to others out of compassion and not for self-exaltation.


----------



## ambush80

I'm just gonna blurt thoughts out as they come to me:


I think a deist is more likely to say "your will be done" whereas an Atheist will take it upon themselves to affect an outcome.


----------



## CRT

ambush80 said:


> I'm just gonna blurt thoughts out as they come to me:
> 
> 
> I think a deist is more likely to say "your will be done" whereas an Atheist will take it upon themselves to affect an outcome.



I cannot diagree with your statement alone, but I would argue that the deist who does that, except in the case where he/she can physically do nothing to affect the outcome, would not only be in error humanly speaking, but also as far as to what the Bible teaches.


----------



## ambush80

5pointCal said:


> Just off the top of my head I think of the missionaries who have literally given their lives for the people they went to serve. If you ever get a chance, look up Lottie Moon. She is just one example. I can't think of one atheist or agnostic who has given his/her life for humanity. If there is one, please tell me because I would love to look into their life.



I don't know of any self proclaimed Atheist humanitarians, but I know non-Christians humanitarians.  Ghandi comes to mind.



5pointCal said:


> I guess my shooting-from-the-hip hypothesis is: Those who believe in the God of the Bible and obey what the Bible teaches (trust and obey)are more inclined to be self-sacrificing for the good of others in the here and now than those who do not believe. Those who believe they have been given much by God are more likely to give much to others out of compassion and not for self-exaltation.



I think that people that believe in the Bible do what they do because they don't want to let God down; obedience.  Atheists do what they do because they have reasoned their way to it.  That's all well and good if the results are positive.  

Compassion is not exclusive to Deists.


----------



## ambush80

johnnylightnin said:


> Only because I think it's true.  I've heard pastors say things like, "God couldn't have stopped what happened" and that may be more comforting to some, but I think it's 100% false, so I would never say it.




And if one really, really believe that it "just happened" there would be some comfort to be had as well.


----------



## johnnylightnin

ambush80 said:


> And if one really, really believe that it "just happened" there would be some comfort to be had as well.



Sure.  My only point was that I don't think being a Christian because it "feels good" or because of the fringe benefits (peace, comfort, joy) are adequate reasons to persevere in the faith.  See temporary camp "conversions" as evidence to this...


----------



## CRT

ambush80 said:


> I don't know of any self proclaimed Atheist humanitarians, but I know non-Christians humanitarians.  Ghandi comes to mind.



Perhaps I should have said deists instead of Christians. That was more my thoughts. 





> I think that people that believe in the Bible do what they do because they don't want to let God down; obedience.  Atheists do what they do because they have reasoned their way to it.  That's all well and good if the results are positive.
> 
> Compassion is not exclusive to Deists.



I agree with you here, but I wasn't speaking specifically of compassion, but of self-sacrifice for others. Because the atheist believes we are but animals striving to survive, it is utter folly that one would give up his/her life for another. Maybe that is why neither of us can think of any atheist humanitarians. Atheism teaches self-preservation, Christianity (I can only speak of the one I know best) teaches self-sacrifice.


----------



## ambush80

johnnylightnin said:


> Sure.  My only point was that I don't think being a Christian because it "feels good" or because of the fringe benefits (peace, comfort, joy) are adequate reasons to persevere in the faith.  See temporary camp "conversions" as evidence to this...



I understand.  You are a Christian because you believe it to be true.  How does believing that God has a plan or a design for all the misery in the world make you behave differently than someone who believes in random acts?



5pointCal said:


> Perhaps I should have said deists instead of Christians. That was more my thoughts.



We shouldn't play the blame game in this thread.  Deists have done some pretty bad things, too.



5pointCal said:


> I agree with you here, but I wasn't speaking specifically of compassion, but of self-sacrifice for others. Because the atheist believes we are but animals striving to survive, it is utter folly that one would give up his/her life for another. Maybe that is why neither of us can think of any atheist humanitarians. Atheism teaches self-preservation, Christianity (I can only speak of the one I know best) teaches self-sacrifice.



I'm not sure the Bible will give you complete instruction on how to self sacrifice.  

Who do you save from drowning, your child or a stranger?  What if you have a better chance of saving the stranger?  I know these are hypothetical scenarios (and I've got plenty of them) but they are good exercises to help determine where one's "moral compass" points.  They also illustrate that any particular doctrine won't necessarily help you make moral determinations in all instances.

There's a point where a mother elk will stop trying to save her calf from a grizzly bear.  I'm not saying that I use that as a model for behavior all the time, but I wouldn't discount it because of dogma.

So how does that translate in my life?   Standing side by side with a Christian or a Deist I don't think anyone could tell us apart.  I have some more thoughts on this but I have to go play frozen tennis.


----------



## ambush80

One more thought.  If one were to believe that God gave us the ability and the instruction on how to determine good and bad, yet not only does he not follow his own rules, but occasionally, directly instructs people to act against them, how might that affect one's behavior?


----------



## ddd-shooter

ambush80 said:


> I'm not sure the Bible will give you complete instruction on how to self sacrifice.



I am not sure Atheism gives you instruction on anything. 


Could that be the allure?


----------



## Inthegarge

All of your "assumption" are black/white. Either God did it/didn't do it or God caused it. God allows man "free will" to chose the right thing or the wrong thing. Example if a person chooses to smoke and gets lung cancer they have no one to blame but themselves. God isn't punishing a person for smoking. He is allowing the natural result to happen. If you are a *****monger and cheat on your wife and she divorces you it's your fault. Bad things happen to good people because bad people cause disruption in others lives while they are screwing up their own. Statistics tell us thet everything we do effects 20 other people. This includes family, friends, neighbors, others in our community, etc., etc...   RW


----------



## Inthegarge

ambush80 said:


> One more thought.  If one were to believe that God gave us the ability and the instruction on how to determine good and bad, yet not only does he not follow his own rules, but occasionally, directly instructs people to act against them, how might that affect one's behavior?



Explain how God doesn't "follow His own rules"...........This ought to be good     RW


----------



## ambush80

ddd-shooter said:


> I am not sure Atheism gives you instruction on anything.
> 
> 
> Could that be the allure?



As far as I know, the closest thing that Atheism has as a "doctrine" is logic.

Atheism leaves you with your instincts and your reason to make sense of the World.   Being an Atheist doesn't prevent one from taking principles from Christianity or Buddhism or any secular philosophy and adopt them as your own "model for good behavior".  All religions, however, do just that.


----------



## ddd-shooter

ambush80 said:


> As far as I know, the closest thing that Atheism has as a "doctrine" is logic.
> 
> Atheism leaves you with your instincts and your reason to make sense of the World.   Being an Atheist doesn't prevent one from taking principles from Christianity or Buddhism or any secular philosophy and adopt them as your own "model for good behavior".  All religions, however, do just that.



What is the litmus test for such principles?


----------



## gtparts

> Originally Posted by grizzlyblake  View Post
> My personal experience is that god does not step in, prayer is a futile activity, and therefore I have come to the conclusion that I don't believe in god because of this. I must have misspoken when saying that I don't think god should step in, of course I think he should, but in reality there is no stepping in, which is what I was getting at.





ddd-shooter said:


> I can hear it now.
> "God, why don't you butt out and let me do my own thing. You are so unfair to always go around and make us your slaves.
> Why can't I do what I want to do? It is my life!"



Sounds like the grizz is ticked at God because he didn't have his prayers answered the way he wanted. The response was to shake his fist at God and say, "I don't believe in you anymore. (I did not get my way.)" He was hurt by the circumstances and the outcome. He is still angry as if God owed him something. Now, that would be a normal human reaction to a terrible, painful, event or series of events. However, God's children should be aware of God's character and understand that much of what they experience, as bad or evil in this life, is the result of living in a world corrupted by sin. They also know that what they experience as bad or evil is far better than what they rightfully deserve. The big difference is in really knowing God relationally and the level of spiritual maturity one has when they encounter those trials. Some draw closer to God and some push Him away. Grizz is still pushing. 

Grizz, I believe if you stop pushing Him away and study His Word for the answers you seek, God will show you that your problem with Him is, indeed, your problem and He is willing to work with you on resolving your issues. He loves redeeming and restoring the lost and healing the crushed and broken of this world. He will do this for you, if you let Him.


----------



## ambush80

ddd-shooter said:


> What is the litmus test for such principles?



Whatever produces the greatest positive outcome; which is situational.


----------



## ddd-shooter

ambush80 said:


> Whatever produces the greatest positive outcome; which is situational.



What about your worldview?


----------



## earl

Jeff Phillips said:


> Sometimes God does step in and sometimes he allows things to run their natural course. There are miracles every day!





I bet you shoot craps  too.


----------



## earl

5pointCal said:


> Just off the top of my head I think of the missionaries who have literally given their lives for the people they went to serve. If you ever get a chance, look up Lottie Moon. She is just one example. I can't think of one atheist or agnostic who has given his/her life for humanity. If there is one, please tell me because I would love to look into their life.
> 
> I guess my shooting-from-the-hip hypothesis is: Those who believe in the God of the Bible and obey what the Bible teaches (trust and obey)are more inclined to be self-sacrificing for the good of others in the here and now than those who do not believe. Those who believe they have been given much by God are more likely to give much to others out of compassion and not for self-exaltation.




Try the firemen ,emergency rescue , police ,and doctor associations.
Next try a few Buddhist on for size. If you research Buddha you will find that he was a teacher ,not a deity.That's just for a start.


----------



## ambush80

ddd-shooter said:


> What about your worldview?



What do you mean by "worldview"?


----------



## CRT

ambush80 said:


> We shouldn't play the blame game in this thread.  Deists have done some pretty bad things, too.



Wasn't blaming anyone for anything. Please don't take this thread there. I know it is a very successful tactic, but it doesn't really add anything to honest discussion.




> I'm not sure the Bible will give you complete instruction on how to self sacrifice.



Not sure what you mean by this, but it definitely gives more instruction on self-sacrifice any atheistic text I know of. 



> Who do you save from drowning, your child or a stranger?  What if you have a better chance of saving the stranger?  I know these are hypothetical scenarios (and I've got plenty of them) but they are good exercises to help determine where one's "moral compass" points.  They also illustrate that any particular doctrine won't necessarily help you make moral determinations in all instances.



This isn't a "moral" dilemma. You have to try and save the one you decide you have the best chance of saving, or else both are lost. Nothing "moral" to think about there.

The problem with hypotheticals is that they are hypothetical.



> There's a point where a mother elk will stop trying to save her calf from a grizzly bear.  I'm not saying that I use that as a model for behavior all the time, but I wouldn't discount it because of dogma.



Excuse my ignorance, but I don't understand what this has to do with anything we're talking about.



> So how does that translate in my life?   Standing side by side with a Christian or a Deist I don't think anyone could tell us apart.  I have some more thoughts on this but I have to go play frozen tennis.



The test isn't when we're standing side by side doing nothing. The test is how do we react in hard times, how do we treat our enemies, how much more do we care about others than we do ourselves. Put 100 people side by side and I can't tell which ones are HIV positive, addicted to crack, or alcoholics either. But let me watch them live a while and I will know them by their fruits.


----------



## CRT

earl said:


> Try the firemen ,emergency rescue , police ,and doctor associations.



That is their job. They get paid (albeit not near what they should) to put their lives on the line. As far as the doctors, they get paid handsomely for their services.




> Next try a few Buddhist on for size. If you research Buddha you will find that he was a teacher ,not a deity.That's just for a start.



Please go back and reread where I stated that I should have said deists instead of Christians.  Thanks for your advice though.


----------



## gtparts

> _Quote from Ambush80_
> 
> So how does that translate in my life? Standing side by side with a Christian or a Deist I don't think anyone could tell us apart.






> _Quoted response from 5pointCal_
> The test isn't when we're standing side by side doing nothing. The test is how do we react in hard times, how do we treat our enemies, how much more do we care about others than we do ourselves. Put 100 people side by side and I can't tell which ones are HIV positive, addicted to crack, or alcoholics either. But let me watch them live a while and I will know them by their fruits.



Having a person or persons examine others for the differences and similarities between the subjects is not the test that counts, though such examinations do reveal variations in behavior. The real test is based on motivation and is conducted by God. Nothing will be hidden. The goats will be cast out for their unbelief. No need to submit a resume of "good" works. 
His sheep will be examined on their works, not as to salvation, but as to rewards in heaven. 

The measure used is not one of relative differences, comparing one man to another. God uses a different standard. We will all individually stand IN Christ or fall on our own.


----------



## CRT

gtparts said:


> Having a person or persons examine others for the differences and similarities between the subjects is not the test that counts, though such examinations do reveal variations in behavior. The real test is based on motivation and is conducted by God. Nothing will be hidden. The goats will be cast out for their unbelief. No need to submit a resume of "good" works.
> His sheep will be examined on their works, not as to salvation, but as to rewards in heaven.
> 
> The measure used is not one of relative differences, comparing one man to another. God uses a different standard. We will all stand in Christ or fall on our own.



Completely agree, but the discussion we're having is how unbelif or belief in a diety (whether or not one exists) translates into how we live our day to day lives. In other words, are those who believe in a diety more likely to make better citizens than those who do not. I say yes, ambush of course says no. Another debate that cannot be "proven" but, one worth having.


----------



## gtparts

5pointCal said:


> Completely agree, but the discussion we're having is how unbelief or belief in a deity (whether or not one exists) translates into how we live our day to day lives. In other words, are those who believe in a deity more likely to make better citizens than those who do not. I say yes, ambush of course says no. Another debate that cannot be "proven" but, one worth having.



Understood. The broad context of "deists" makes the question nearly impossible to answer. One could offer up any number of scenarios to tilt the thinking for either side, real or hypothetical. 

Typically, the atheist uses situational ethics to guide his or her actions. It is very difficult to put trust in someone who is willing to equivocate, to see most things as shades of gray. He is at the very core self-serving. Double-minded. Shifting sand. Luke warm.

At least a deist, if his particular faith is known, gives cause to trust his or her behavior to be more consistent with that belief system. Some belief systems encourage better citizenship...with others, it is not even close to a priority of their teaching.


----------



## CRT

gtparts said:


> Understood. The broad context of "deists" makes the question nearly impossible to answer. One could offer up any number of scenarios to tilt the thinking for either side, real or hypothetical.
> 
> Typically, the atheist uses situational ethics to guide his or her actions. It is very difficult to put trust in someone who is willing to equivocate, to see most things as shades of gray. He is at the very core self-serving. Double-minded. Shifting sand. Luke warm.
> 
> At least a deist, if his particular faith is known, gives cause to trust his or her behavior to be more consistent with that belief system. Some belief systems encourage better citizenship...with others, it is not even close to a priority of their teaching.



You put that better than I ever could. That is exactly what I was trying to communicate. Kudos!!


----------



## Huntinfool

Here's a thought form this morning's reading time about why God doesn't prevent "bad" things....maybe it fits...maybe you think it doesn't.

I like to read through the Luke around this time of year just because I like the extended version of the birth of Christ.  so I started in the first chapter this morning and something struck me in light of this thread.

Starting in vs 5, here is what it says:

_...there was a priest named Zechariah...and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.  And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.  But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years._


Now, here's what struck me.  Note this part of it..."and they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statues of the Lord."

These people were absolutely righteous in the sight of the Lord!  It even goes as far as to say they walked BLAMELESSLY in ALL of the commandments.  That's pretty high praise, don't ya think?

If there was ANYBODY on earth who God would bless, it would be these two.  Yet, from their earthly perspective, they were cursed with not being able to have children.  As hard as that is to live through nowadays (I've lived it), it must have been even harder back then.  Being barren was viewed as a curse and bearing and raising children was the primary role of women....

Can you imagine being Zechariah and Elizabeth?  They did everything perfectly, yet from their perspective, God was not blessing them.  BAD things were happening to them.  Could they see what was going happen?  NO!  In fact, the passage clearly indicates that they had come to grips with the fact that they would never have children since they were "advanced in years" at this point.

Why God?  Why is this happening to them?  Why would you "curse" these blameless people?

God had chosen Elizabeth to bear the one who would proclaim the soon coming of the Christ....the voice crying out in the wilderness.  but she could not see it.  All she knew was that she was barren and would never have kids...naturally.

I just thought this was a good example of what can be perceived as "bad" from a limited earthly perspective actually being purposed for the ultimate good in the will of God.

Yes, this story had a happy ending here on earth.  No, they don't always turn out this way.  But my point is that often we cannot see the ultimate purpose and that ultimate purpose is not always for our individual earthly happiness or good.  

I know some of you guys will just dismiss as the "Well God has a higher purpose for your suffering" argument.  I can't convince you otherwise really and I'm not trying to.  I'm just trying to give you an example from "our book" of how something that would naturally be seen as "bad" is used for the ultimate purpose of Christ.

Y'all get back to arguing.  Just a short intermission.  Merry Christmas!


----------



## CRT

Huntinfool said:


> Here's a thought form this morning's reading time about why God doesn't prevent "bad" things....maybe it fits...maybe you think it doesn't.
> 
> I like to read through the Luke around this time of year just because I like the extended version of the birth of Christ.  so I started in the first chapter this morning and something struck me in light of this thread.
> 
> Starting in vs 5, here is what it says:
> 
> _...there was a priest named Zechariah...and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.  And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.  But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years._
> 
> 
> Now, here's what struck me.  Note this part of it..."and they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statues of the Lord."
> 
> These people were absolutely righteous in the sight of the Lord!  It even goes as far as to say they walked BLAMELESSLY in ALL of the commandments.  That's pretty high praise, don't ya think?
> 
> If there was ANYBODY on earth who God would bless, it would be these two.  Yet, from their earthly perspective, they were cursed with not being able to have children.  As hard as that is to live through nowadays (I've lived it), it must have been even harder back then.  Being barren was viewed as a curse and bearing and raising children was the primary role of women....
> 
> Can you imagine being Zechariah and Elizabeth?  They did everything perfectly, yet from their perspective, God was not blessing them.  BAD things were happening to them.  Could they see what was going happen?  NO!  In fact, the passage clearly indicates that they had come to grips with the fact that they would never have children since they were "advanced in years" at this point.
> 
> Why God?  Why is this happening to them?  Why would you "curse" these blameless people?
> 
> God had chosen Elizabeth to bear the one who would proclaim the soon coming of the Christ....the voice crying out in the wilderness.  but she could not see it.  All she knew was that she was barren and would never have kids...naturally.
> 
> I just thought this was a good example of what can be perceived as "bad" from a limited earthly perspective actually being purposed for the ultimate good in the will of God.
> 
> Yes, this story had a happy ending here on earth.  No, they don't always turn out this way.  But my point is that often we cannot see the ultimate purpose and that ultimate purpose is not always for our individual earthly happiness or good.
> 
> I know some of you guys will just dismiss as the "Well God has a higher purpose for your suffering" argument.  I can't convince you otherwise really and I'm not trying to.  I'm just trying to give you an example from "our book" of how something that would naturally be seen as "bad" is used for the ultimate purpose of Christ.
> 
> Y'all get back to arguing.  Just a short intermission.  Merry Christmas!



Great post. And imagine how they must have felt (assuming they were still alive) when John was beheaded for the cause of Christ. I'm sure they still didn't/wouldn't curse God or say He must not exist.


----------



## tell sackett

Huntinfool said:


> Here's a thought form this morning's reading time about why God doesn't prevent "bad" things....maybe it fits...maybe you think it doesn't.
> 
> I like to read through the Luke around this time of year just because I like the extended version of the birth of Christ.  so I started in the first chapter this morning and something struck me in light of this thread.
> 
> Starting in vs 5, here is what it says:
> 
> _...there was a priest named Zechariah...and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.  And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.  But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years._
> 
> 
> Now, here's what struck me.  Note this part of it..."and they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statues of the Lord."
> 
> These people were absolutely righteous in the sight of the Lord!  It even goes as far as to say they walked BLAMELESSLY in ALL of the commandments.  That's pretty high praise, don't ya think?
> 
> If there was ANYBODY on earth who God would bless, it would be these two.  Yet, from their earthly perspective, they were cursed with not being able to have children.  As hard as that is to live through nowadays (I've lived it), it must have been even harder back then.  Being barren was viewed as a curse and bearing and raising children was the primary role of women....
> 
> Can you imagine being Zechariah and Elizabeth?  They did everything perfectly, yet from their perspective, God was not blessing them.  BAD things were happening to them.  Could they see what was going happen?  NO!  In fact, the passage clearly indicates that they had come to grips with the fact that they would never have children since they were "advanced in years" at this point.
> 
> Why God?  Why is this happening to them?  Why would you "curse" these blameless people?
> 
> God had chosen Elizabeth to bear the one who would proclaim the soon coming of the Christ....the voice crying out in the wilderness.  but she could not see it.  All she knew was that she was barren and would never have kids...naturally.
> 
> I just thought this was a good example of what can be perceived as "bad" from a limited earthly perspective actually being purposed for the ultimate good in the will of God.
> 
> Yes, this story had a happy ending here on earth.  No, they don't always turn out this way.  But my point is that often we cannot see the ultimate purpose and that ultimate purpose is not always for our individual earthly happiness or good.
> 
> I know some of you guys will just dismiss as the "Well God has a higher purpose for your suffering" argument.  I can't convince you otherwise really and I'm not trying to.  I'm just trying to give you an example from "our book" of how something that would naturally be seen as "bad" is used for the ultimate purpose of Christ.
> 
> Y'all get back to arguing.  Just a short intermission.  Merry Christmas!


Excellent post! And Merry Christmas to all!


----------



## Jeff Phillips

earl said:


> I bet you shoot craps  too.



I did not say it was random or chance. I have faith that God has a plan. 

If I'm wrong and your right, when we die we will just be lights out.

If I'm right and your wrong, when we die I get to spend eternity in paradise.

I like those odds, eternity is a long time


----------



## gtparts

5pointCal said:


> Great post. And imagine how they must have felt (assuming they were still alive) when John was beheaded for the cause of Christ. I'm sure they still didn't/wouldn't curse God or say He must not exist.



Ran through my mind also. The LORD giveth and the LORD taketh away. Blessed be the name of the LORD.


----------



## CRT

Jeff Phillips said:


> I did not say it was random or chance. I have faith that God has a plan.
> 
> If I'm wrong and your right, when we die we will just be lights out.
> 
> If I'm right and your wrong, when we die I get to spend eternity in paradise.
> 
> I like those odds, eternity is a long time



Be ready. There going to come at you with the "fallacy of Pascal's Wager" now.


----------



## earl

Jeff Phillips said:


> I did not say it was random or chance. I have faith that God has a plan.
> 
> If I'm wrong and your right, when we die we will just be lights out.
> 
> If I'm right and your wrong, when we die I get to spend eternity in paradise.
> 
> I like those odds, eternity is a long time





Once again we return to believing so we can live forever like a god.


----------



## earl

5pointCal said:


> That is their job. They get paid (albeit not near what they should) to put their lives on the line. As far as the doctors, they get paid handsomely for their services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please go back and reread where I stated that I should have said deists instead of Christians.  Thanks for your advice though.





You put a little too fine a point on that. Almost to a man,the ones I mentioned don't do it just for the pay. Even the highly skilled and highly paid Dr. If these professions were brought up with Christians in mind ,we would be hearing how God led them to dedicate their lives to helping and saving their fellow man.
I swear some of ya'll must think atheists are boogy men hiding under your bed.


----------



## CRT

earl said:


> Once again we return to believing so we can live forever like a god.



And why wouldn't we, it's what we believe. Isn't it nice to have a choice.


----------



## CRT

earl said:


> You put a little too fine a point on that. Almost to a man,the ones I mentioned don't do it just for the pay. Even the highly skilled and highly paid Dr. If these professions were brought up with Christians in mind ,we would be hearing how God led them to dedicate their lives to helping and saving their fellow man.
> I swear some of ya'll must think atheists are boogy men hiding under your bed.



There are both Christians and atheist (as well as Muslim, Hindus, etc) in each of these professions. They all do something that is both necessary and commendable and are, with the exception of the doctors, way underpaid. I never said that money was their sole motivation, for if it were, they are in a bad way. But that is a far cry from giving your life away in the mission field to care for starving and diseased people who at first don't even want you there. For giving your own food and clothing to people who hate you, mock you, even beat you. And it was these peoples belief in God that drove them to do such. There have been many evil people claim the name of Christ, but they haven't lived how Christ commanded His people to live. And if an atheist is evil, he is still keeping with his belief. His choice, right? No body said all or even most atheist are boogy men. I only implied that they are *ultimately* self-serving and in order to be faithful to their ideology, they must be because life, at it's most basic premise, is simply survival of the fittest. 

Please go read about Hudson Taylor, Lottie Moon, Jim Elliot, Richard Wurmbrand, George Muellar and the other missionaries who sacrificed their lives, not just in death, but in life itself, for others. And then name for me at least one atheist who has done the same. It is against their very nature.


----------



## earl

5pointCal said:


> There are both Christians and atheist (as well as Muslim, Hindus, etc) in each of these professions. They all do something that is both necessary and commendable and are, with the exception of the doctors, way underpaid. I never said that money was their sole motivation, for if it were, they are in a bad way. But that is a far cry from giving your life away in the mission field to care for starving and diseased people who at first don't even want you there. For giving your own food and clothing to people who hate you, mock you, even beat you. And it was these peoples belief in God that drove them to do such. There have been many evil people claim the name of Christ, but they haven't lived how Christ commanded His people to live. And if an atheist is evil, he is still keeping with his belief. His choice, right? No body said all or even most atheist are boogy men. I only implied that they are *ultimately* self-serving and in order to be faithful to their ideology, they must be because life, at it's most basic premise, is simply survival of the fittest.
> 
> Please go read about Hudson Taylor, Lottie Moon, Jim Elliot, Richard Wurmbrand, George Muellar and the other missionaries who sacrificed their lives, not just in death, but in life itself, for others. And then name for me at least one atheist who has done the same. It is against their very nature.





I won't be able to look at them today. But ,Your missionary example is flawed to me. They are doing what they do ,not for those heathen savages or self sacrifice ,but because they believe that God told them to spread the word. Their ''reward'' will be an everlasting god like  after life.  Now ,can you name me one Christian who does ANY THING with no hope for reward ?


----------



## CRT

earl said:


> I won't be able to look at them today. But ,Your missionary example is flawed to me. They are doing what they do ,not for those heathen savages or self sacrifice ,but because they believe that God told them to spread the word. Their ''reward'' will be an everlasting god like  after life.  Now ,can you name me one Christian who does ANY THING with no hope for reward ?



You don't understand the basic teachings of Christianity, for according to Scripture, it is not a works-based religion. I don't go to Heaven because I starve to death for the poor Chinese or give my life for orphans, or go to church and give tithes everytime the doors are open. I go to Heaven because of the finished work of Christ on the cross and I do the other things out of love and gratitude for the gift I have been given. I'm not required to do any acts in order to merit salvation. In fact, should one think they are earning eternal life as a "reward" for their good works, they would be just like the Pharisees that Jesus condemned. Perhaps you should study Jesus' teachings more so you can discuss more accurately.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

earl said:


> I won't be able to look at them today. But ,Your missionary example is flawed to me. They are doing what they do ,not for those heathen savages or self sacrifice ,but because they believe that God told them to spread the word. Their ''reward'' will be an everlasting god like  after life.  Now ,can you name me one Christian who does ANY THING with no hope for reward ?



I think ALL (Christians, atheists, etc) can do things with no hope of reward, because of love.   Love for my son is why I always give him the best deer stand, or give him the rod when that first tarpon takes a bait.   (Well, in a way my reward is seeing him happy, but you get my point)   God is not required for people to do good...   Christmas time is a great example of that.    Most of us give gifts just for the purpose of making someone else happy...or helping them out.


----------



## CRT

BANDERSNATCH said:


> God is not required for people to do good...   Christmas time is a great example of that.    Most of us give gifts just for the purpose of making someone else happy...or helping them out.



But God _is_ love right? God is required for people to do good. Belief in God is not required for a person to do something good toward man.


----------



## ddd-shooter

ambush80 said:


> What do you mean by "worldview"?



Those principles that remain outside of "situations."
You must have basic ethics, basic guidelines to live by, something that shapes your political, ethical and daily choices.


----------



## ambush80

gtparts said:


> Understood. The broad context of "deists" makes the question nearly impossible to answer. One could offer up any number of scenarios to tilt the thinking for either side, real or hypothetical.
> 
> Typically, the atheist uses situational ethics to guide his or her actions. It is very difficult to put trust in someone who is willing to equivocate, to see most things as shades of gray. He is at the very core self-serving. Double-minded. Shifting sand. Luke warm.
> 
> At least a deist, if his particular faith is known, gives cause to trust his or her behavior to be more consistent with that belief system. Some belief systems encourage better citizenship...with others, it is not even close to a priority of their teaching.



I asked myself: "Who would i want next to me in a crisis? a Deist or an Atheist?"  I came to the conclusion that a Deist might put his fate in the mercy of God or make decisions based on dogma whereas an Atheist would do what was rational.  I understand rational.  So it goes for everyday events.


----------



## ambush80

ddd-shooter said:


> Those principles that remain outside of "situations."
> You must have basic ethics, basic guidelines to live by, something that shapes your political, ethical and daily choices.



I guess I believe that every organism wants to live.


----------



## Huntinfool

ambush80 said:


> I asked myself: "Who would i want next to me in a crisis? a Deist or an Atheist?"  I came to the conclusion that a Deist might put his fate in the mercy of God or make decisions based on dogma whereas an Atheist would do what was rational.  I understand rational.  So it goes for everyday events.



Why do you assume deism and rationality are mutually exclusive?


----------



## johnnylightnin

Huntinfool said:


> Why do you assume deism and rationality are mutually exclusive?



Or that irrationality and atheism are mutually exclusive.  I wish he could talk to some of the atheists I've talked to.


----------



## Huntinfool

The fact that so many of them hang out on the Huff Post should be some sort of "rational" litmus test...don't you think?


----------



## heavymetalhunter

5pointCal said:


> God is required for people to do good.


----------



## johnnylightnin

heavymetalhunter said:


>



Is the right thing done for the wrong reason still good?


----------



## earl

5pointCal said:


> You don't understand the basic teachings of Christianity, for according to Scripture, it is not a works-based religion. I don't go to Heaven because I starve to death for the poor Chinese or give my life for orphans, or go to church and give tithes everytime the doors are open. I go to Heaven because of the finished work of Christ on the cross and I do the other things out of love and gratitude for the gift I have been given. I'm not required to do any acts in order to merit salvation. In fact, should one think they are earning eternal life as a "reward" for their good works, they would be just like the Pharisees that Jesus condemned. Perhaps you should study Jesus' teachings more so you can discuss more accurately.





I don't think I have a problem with accuracy. How about the adage that you will know them by their fruits. And the one about spreading the word to all parts of the world before the return of Jesus. And does not the bible tell you to tithe ,lay your life down, and feed the hungry? Are you saying the missionaries are not doing precisely what God commanded them to do ?  Please tell me you haven't joinred the ranks of the ones who think that only the saved ones who have eaten of the meat of the bible can understand.
What bible are you using that doesn't command you to do these things ,not to obtain salvation , but because you have recieved salvation.

On another note ,I would think it more selfless of an atheist to give his life for another ,since it is the only life he believes he will ever have. A Christian shouldn't be bothered in giving his life ,since his belief is that his afterlife will be forever. Kind of like giving up one son when he is all you will ever have.


----------



## earl

5pointCal said:


> But God _is_ love right? God is required for people to do good. Belief in God is not required for a person to do something good toward man.



No. Think of all the Godless people and countries. If God was a reqirement for good ,only Christian countries would have good. Thankfully ,that is not the case.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> Why do you assume deism and rationality are mutually exclusive?



You can be rational in all parts of your life except for your faith; which is irrational.  It allows you to make decisions based on irrational principles.



johnnylightnin said:


> Or that irrationality and atheism are mutually exclusive.  I wish he could talk to some of the atheists I've talked to.



Since Atheists deny the existence a higher power to provide them with codes for conduct, they resort to reason to make those determinations.  Sometimes an Atheist's reasoning is flawed, but you can lead them step by step through the reasoning process and show them where they messed up.  With a Deist, if they are using their doctrine as their guide, not so much step by step analysis.



earl said:


> I don't think I have a problem with accuracy. How about the adage that you will know them by their fruits. And the one about spreading the word to all parts of the world before the return of Jesus. And does not the bible tell you to tithe ,lay your life down, and feed the hungry? Are you saying the missionaries are not doing precisely what God commanded them to do ?  Please tell me you haven't joinred the ranks of the ones who think that only the saved ones who have eaten of the meat of the bible can understand.
> What bible are you using that doesn't command you to do these things ,not to obtain salvation , but because you have recieved salvation.
> 
> On another note ,I would think it more selfless of an atheist to give his life for another ,since it is the only life he believes he will ever have. A Christian shouldn't be bothered in giving his life ,since his belief is that his afterlife will be forever. Kind of like giving up one son when he is all you will ever have.



...And because he came to that determination by his own faculties, not because he's following a doctrine.


----------



## CRT

earl said:


> No. Think of all the Godless people and countries. If God was a reqirement for good ,only Christian countries would have good. Thankfully ,that is not the case.




People and countries are godless, not because He doesn't exist, but because they don't believe. I know we'll never agree here, but my post wasn't made looking for agreement. The only reason there is good at all in this world is because there is a God, who by nature is good. And notice I didn't say that only people who believe in God do good toward man, but the very fact that they are able to do good is because there is a God who is good. 

And yes, I do believe that you don't understand.


----------



## CRT

earl said:


> I don't think I have a problem with accuracy. How about the adage that you will know them by their fruits. And the one about spreading the word to all parts of the world before the return of Jesus. And does not the bible tell you to tithe ,lay your life down, and feed the hungry? Are you saying the missionaries are not doing precisely what God commanded them to do ?  Please tell me you haven't joinred the ranks of the ones who think that only the saved ones who have eaten of the meat of the bible can understand.
> What bible are you using that doesn't command you to do these things ,not to obtain salvation , but because you have recieved salvation.
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. Obedience comes, not out of fear of losing or hope of gaining a reward, but out of love and gratitude for the gift of salvation.
> 
> On another note ,I would think it more selfless of an atheist to give his life for another ,since it is the only life he believes he will ever have. A Christian shouldn't be bothered in giving his life ,since his belief is that his afterlife will be forever. Kind of like giving up one son when he is all you will ever have.
> 
> Maybe that is why you don't see any atheist "missionaries" or humanitarians giving up there lives for another.
> 
> I think it kind of dumb to say a Christian shouldn't be bothered in giving his life, as if it's no big deal. Death is a big deal whether you are a deist or an atheist, because regardless of whether you believe in an afterlife or not, you only get one life HERE.



Could you please clarify what you are meaning in the first bit above. It seems as if you are saying that I said Christians don't have to follow the commands to preach the Gospel, tithe, etc. But I don't recall saying that.

Thank you.


----------



## ddd-shooter

ambush80 said:


> I guess I believe that every organism wants to live.



So when you get out of bed, you simply try and keep as many organisms alive as possible? 

Do you hunt? lol 
I assume you have a campaign to stamp out abortion as well...


----------



## ddd-shooter

earl said:


> What bible are you using that doesn't command you to do these things ,not to obtain salvation , but because you have recieved salvation.



To the first part:
1 Corinthians 2:
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 

Matthew 10:8
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.


----------



## ambush80

ddd-shooter said:


> So when you get out of bed, you simply try and keep as many organisms alive as possible?
> 
> Do you hunt? lol
> I assume you have a campaign to stamp out abortion as well...



I mean every single organism wants to live.  The deer, the turkey, the bass, you, myself....Get it?  It's their prime motivation.


----------



## earl

5pointCal said:


> Could you please clarify what you are meaning in the first bit above. It seems as if you are saying that I said Christians don't have to follow the commands to preach the Gospel, tithe, etc. But I don't recall saying that.
> 
> Thank you.



Your post 258.You were listing things that would not get you salvation saying it was not works based. You are however commanded to do these things after salvation.  That is were I say your self sacrificing missionaries are only doing what God commanded.


----------



## earl

5pointCal said:


> People and countries are godless, not because He doesn't exist, but because they don't believe. I know we'll never agree here, but my post wasn't made looking for agreement. The only reason there is good at all in this world is because there is a God, who by nature is good. And notice I didn't say that only people who believe in God do good toward man, but the very fact that they are able to do good is because there is a God who is good.
> 
> And yes, I do believe that you don't understand.




Not so much understand as I do disagree.


----------



## CRT

earl said:


> Not so much understand as I do disagree.



That's fine too. Choice is good, right??


----------



## earl

ddd-shooter said:


> To the first part:
> 1 Corinthians 2:
> 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
> 
> Matthew 10:8
> Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.





you lost me.


----------



## ddd-shooter

earl said:


> you lost me.



Here is the statement:
"What bible are you using that doesn't command you to do these things ,not to obtain salvation , but because you have recieved salvation."

I said these verses are in the Bible and say we are to do these things because God has freely given them to us, so we should want to freely give. 

1 Corinthians 2:
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 

Matthew 10:8
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.


----------



## ddd-shooter

ambush80 said:


> I mean every single organism wants to live.  The deer, the turkey, the bass, you, myself....Get it?  It's their prime motivation.



So your prime motivation in life always is to survive. 
But if this is the case, what about your utilitarian statement about "whatever does the most good for the most people?"

If your situational ethics say do what is best for most people but your general outlook on things says you just want to live, is that not a contradiction?


----------



## ambush80

ddd-shooter said:


> So your prime motivation in life always is to survive.
> But if this is the case, what about your utilitarian statement about "whatever does the most good for the most people?"
> 
> If your situational ethics say do what is best for most people but your general outlook on things says you just want to live, is that not a contradiction?



That's a determination based on the survival of the species.  Which is why it would be easy for me to say that if they drag me through town, put a crown of thorns on me and hang me on a cross till I die then I would do it to save 6 million people that I don't even know; much less the whole world.  It's an easy and logical decision.


----------



## mtnwoman

Eden was created to be perfect, usn's messed it up and have continued to do so since then.

God puts it in our hearts to help others, especially the hungry. We send tons of grain etc overseas to feed the hungry. The rats (who may be reincarnated uncle albert) eat the grain and the people won't kill the rats nor kill the cows to eat.

God sends missionaries to clothe and feed a lot of folks, some missionaries end up dead or unsupported because some folks think the bible shouldn't be "forced" upon the people the missionaries are trying to help....so they don't support the missionaries who are trying to feed the people...

And it goes on and on.

God does help, He sends us, but we are either not accepted or not supported or unwilling.  And when I say He sends us, I'm talking about ALL of us not just Christians. Most people have a conviction to help others, some do and some don't.  Some people think God should poof it all into goodness while they sit back and do nothing...what's up with that? If you do nothing then it's you who allow some of these bad things to happen, also.

Satan is alive and well on planet earth, if not for him we wouldn't have any evil on earth. But we do and only a few of us are willing to fight him and his evil doings.


----------



## earl

ddd-shooter said:


> Here is the statement:
> "What bible are you using that doesn't command you to do these things ,not to obtain salvation , but because you have recieved salvation."
> 
> I said these verses are in the Bible and say we are to do these things because God has freely given them to us, so we should want to freely give.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 2:
> 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
> 
> Matthew 10:8
> Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.





I have the feeling this is getting circular. You say freely give and I say the bible commends. Semantics at best. In your context what do yo ou do about the fruits ? If you don't have any to show , you aren't really a Christian. If you do have fruits ,you are still doing as God commanded.
 It looks like another case of making the bible say what you want to support your view. Or mine.


----------



## ddd-shooter

earl said:


> I have the feeling this is getting circular. You say freely give and I say the bible commends. Semantics at best. In your context what do yo ou do about the fruits ? If you don't have any to show , you aren't really a Christian. If you do have fruits ,you are still doing as God commanded.
> It looks like another case of making the bible say what you want to support your view. Or mine.



You cannot 'work' your way into heaven. 
We have "fruits" because we want to. 
When you took a vow to your wife when you got married, did every hug and kiss after that happen because you said you would and therefore "have" to? Or is it because you want to? If, at that same wedding I say to someone in the pew, "Watch what earl does. If he loves his wife, he will have lots of 'fruit,'" does that mean I just commanded you to have fruit, or does it simply mean I know how to tell who really "got it?"


----------



## earl

Puritan-books.com

From the list of 1050 commands and a few  rewards in the NT ,here are a few...

7. Blessings promised for giving:
(1) Returns on the basis of giving (Luke 6:38; 2 Cor. 9:6)
(2) Reward (Matthew 10:42)
(3) All grace abounding (2 Cor. 9:8)
(4) All sufficiency (2 Cor. 9:8)
(5) Eternal righteousness (2 Cor. 9:9)
(6) Increased fruits (2 Cor. 9:10)
(7) Enrichment in all things (2 Cor. 9:11)
Five "Go's":
1. Go two miles (Matthew 5:41)
2. Go teach (Matthew 28:19-20)
3. Go preach (Mark 16:15)
4. Go not from house to house (Luke 10:7)
5. Go and do likewise (Luke 10:37)


It would appear that you are COMMANDED to teach and preach .Kind of like a missionary.


----------



## gtparts

I have spent some time on this silliness concerning the "survival of the species" argument and, frankly, I don't know anyone who has personally done anything with the survival of the species as the sole motivation for action. It is utter nonsense to think the SOTS depends on the action of one or even several million people. Expanding population is more of a threat than underpopulation. Even 2000 years ago, I feel fairly certain that, continuing the species was not the concern of a single person.


----------



## crackerdave

earl said:


> I won't be able to look at them today. But ,Your missionary example is flawed to me. They are doing what they do ,not for those heathen savages or self sacrifice ,but because they believe that God told them to spread the word. Their ''reward'' will be an everlasting god like  after life.  Now ,can you name me one Christian who does ANY THING with no hope for reward ?



Me. Not _earthly_ rewards,anyway.


----------



## Israel

earl said:


> I have the feeling this is getting circular. You say freely give and I say the bible commends. Semantics at best. In your context what do yo ou do about the fruits ? If you don't have any to show , you aren't really a Christian. If you do have fruits ,you are still doing as God commanded.
> It looks like another case of making the bible say what you want to support your view. Or mine.




It's an interesting point you make there.

For me it is somewhat removed from "the Bible tells me so".
I cannot "do" the Bible...but we are given the spirit of God to hear the spirit of God.
Now when you talk about fruit/fruits...those things are the harvest of God sown into the soul by the Holy Spirit.
That fruit can only be spiritually sensed...the carnal man often views patience as folly, forbearance as surrender, compassion as weakness, temperance as asceticism.

But it is interesting in your example regarding giving...for how can anyone be free if they are commanded to?

But that is precisely why we are...whether anyone of this world recognizes it or not...someone commanded liberty to us...and had he not, we would know nothing of it.


----------



## ambush80

gtparts said:


> I have spent some time on this silliness concerning the "survival of the species" argument and, frankly, I don't know anyone who has personally done anything with the survival of the species as the sole motivation for action. It is utter nonsense to think the SOTS depends on the action of one or even several million people. Expanding population is more of a threat than underpopulation. Even 2000 years ago, I feel fairly certain that, continuing the species was not the concern of a single person.



If you had to die to save 6 million people would you do it?  What if you had to carry a giant piece of wood while people spat on you?   What of they disemboweled you and lit you on fire.  Pulled your toenails out?  What if was to save 600million people? Would you do it? You might even endure it to save just one person, if it was the right one say, your child or your spouse.  Why would you do this?  Because of God's love?  Or because it's either logical or genetically programmed?


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> It's an interesting point you make there.
> 
> For me it is somewhat removed from "the Bible tells me so".
> I cannot "do" the Bible...but we are given the spirit of God to hear the spirit of God.
> Now when you talk about fruit/fruits...those things are the harvest of God sown into the soul by the Holy Spirit.
> That fruit can only be spiritually sensed...the carnal man often views patience as folly, forbearance as surrender, compassion as weakness, temperance as asceticism.
> 
> But it is interesting in your example regarding giving...for how can anyone be free if they are commanded to?
> 
> But that is precisely why we are...whether anyone of this world recognizes it or not...someone commanded liberty to us...and had he not, we would know nothing of it.



Gross generalization.


----------



## gtparts

ambush80 said:


> If you had to die to save 6 million people would you do it?  What if you had to carry a giant piece of wood while people spat on you?   What of they disemboweled you and lit you on fire.  Pulled your toenails out?  What if was to save 600million people? Would you do it? You might even endure it to save just one person, if it was the right one say, your child or your spouse.  Why would you do this?  Because of God's love?  Or because it's either logical or genetically programmed?



It does not seem logical in the least. My living or dieing will not preserve the life of anyone. At best, it might postpone the passing of some from life into eternity for a short time. 

Genetically programmed? You're kidding, right? Genetic programming does not allow for "would you do it?". Of the options you propose, God's love is the only thing that could account for my willingness to sacrifice myself.


----------



## earl

crackerdave said:


> Me. Not _earthly_ rewards,anyway.



Come on now ,cd. I think enough of your personality comes through your posts for me to safely say that you place a lot more importance on the rewards that are not earthly.


----------



## earl

Israel said:


> It's an interesting point you make there.
> 
> For me it is somewhat removed from "the Bible tells me so".
> I cannot "do" the Bible...but we are given the spirit of God to hear the spirit of God.
> Now when you talk about fruit/fruits...those things are the harvest of God sown into the soul by the Holy Spirit.
> That fruit can only be spiritually sensed...the carnal man often views patience as folly, forbearance as surrender, compassion as weakness, temperance as asceticism.
> 
> But it is interesting in your example regarding giving...for how can anyone be free if they are commanded to?
> 
> But that is precisely why we are...whether anyone of this world recognizes it or not...someone commanded liberty to us...and had he not, we would know nothing of it.



Do you not use the bible to help you interpret what you hear from the spirit of God ? Do you not use the bible and it's commands to give direction to your life ?
If fruit can only be spiritually sensed, how will your fellow Christians see it. You will know them by their fruits. Would that not also be how the unsaved will also know you are ''different '' ?


----------



## ddd-shooter

earl said:


> Puritan-books.com
> 
> From the list of 1050 commands and a few  rewards in the NT ,here are a few...
> 
> 7. Blessings promised for giving:
> (1) Returns on the basis of giving (Luke 6:38; 2 Cor. 9:6)
> (2) Reward (Matthew 10:42)
> (3) All grace abounding (2 Cor. 9:8)
> (4) All sufficiency (2 Cor. 9:8)
> (5) Eternal righteousness (2 Cor. 9:9)
> (6) Increased fruits (2 Cor. 9:10)
> (7) Enrichment in all things (2 Cor. 9:11)
> Five "Go's":
> 1. Go two miles (Matthew 5:41)
> 2. Go teach (Matthew 28:19-20)
> 3. Go preach (Mark 16:15)
> 4. Go not from house to house (Luke 10:7)
> 5. Go and do likewise (Luke 10:37)
> 
> 
> It would appear that you are COMMANDED to teach and preach .Kind of like a missionary.



Nice side-step. Like I said, your wife or the minister listed things you should do to/for her. Does that mean you can no longer do those things on your own? 

Next time you "have and hold, love, honor, and obey" her, tell her it is only because she said you had to when she was laying the groundwork for what she expected out of you...


----------



## earl

ddd-shooter said:


> Nice side-step. Like I said, your wife or the minister listed things you should do to/for her. Does that mean you can no longer do those things on your own?
> 
> Next time you "have and hold, love, honor, and obey" her, tell her it is only because she said you had to when she was laying the groundwork for what she expected out of you...






No side step intended . I answered this part of your post...''We have "fruits" because we want to. ''
  I thought the rest was either rhetorical or just you poking in sport.
On a little lighter note . Woman do not love or marry you for what you are ,they love and marry you for what they think they can make out of you . Now that was a poke.


----------



## Sgalbraith

*Why Doesn't God stop bad things from happening*

Hi, 

This is my one and only post here. I am keeping a promise to post this answer to this website so here goes. 

Why does God allow pain and suffering at all? 

God does not allow pain and suffering. What he allows is free will. And because God does not allow pain and suffering and because God is not responsible for pain and suffering, God has provided healing and joy. I do not allow my children to steal, but it still happens from time to time. I'm only guilty of allowing that behavior if I don't punish the child. God is not guilty of allowing this suffering because those who caused it will reap what they've sown. 

If God knows the intentions of a man’s heart, then why doesn’t God stop that man after he elects to commit a sin but before the sin is committed? 

God doesn’t stop our free will because of the grace period. Physical manifestation of sin is what closes the door to repentance opportunities and changes the type of seed a person is planting which will change the harvest. In other words, if 3 boys decide to commit a robbery, any one of those boys could back out of that robbery up until the actual moment the sin is committed. The boy who backs out won’t go to prison like the other two boys. His punishment, rather, will be proportional to the soul. 

But Jesus said that if a man even “looks” at a woman with lust he’s already committed adultery. Jesus also said that if we hate our brother without cause, we are guilty of murder. So why do we need physical manifestations of evil actions if we are guilty of accepting bad thoughts? 

There are some sins people wish to commit but are unable to because of external circumstances. There are people who wish to commit adultery but won’t actually do it for fear of costly divorce or STDs. Think about a man in a wheelchair who wants to rape a child but is not physically able to do it. The point Jesus is making, in these verses, is that just because people weren’t able to follow through with their sinful desires, doesn’t mean those sins won’t be accounted to them. In other words, if there was any way possible for this sin to be committed, they would have done so. Desires to commit sin that they never physically manifested and that are unrepented at the moment of death, will be accounted to them as a manifested sin. In these types of situations, it’s the moment of death which ends their period of grace. 

Well, if that’s the case, then why doesn’t God stop people from manifesting a sin and later hold them accountable at the moment of death if they do not repent?

This is a loaded question, based on false assumptions, designed to elicit an encoded answer. Let the evil exist in someone’s heart but don’t let it manifest, is what everyone desires. This question is based on the false assumption that God can prevent physical manifestations of evil without removing one’s free will or ability to actually make a choice. But you must ask yourself if this is really true. There are some behaviors such as selfishness and greed that can be chosen but cannot be blocked without God forcing the opposite behavior. For example, the only way God can stop a selfish, greedy man from refusing to share his food with a hungry beggar is by forcing that selfish, greedy man to share his food. 

Blocking a bad behavior does not remove one’s free will to choose that behavior so how is this a bad thing? The only way God can stop physical manifestations of evil is by forcing physical manifestations of good. Let’s say I wanted to rob a bank and had already made my decision to do it. If God blocks my evil manifestation, then I would either do nothing at all or do something good instead. Yes, I would still be held accountable for my sin of choosing to rob a bank, but when compared to robbing a bank, doing nothing at all is actually a good thing. Therefore, God has taken the upper hand and forced a good behavior. If God is manipulating me and forcing good behavior, then did I ever really have a choice? It’s not the blocking of bad deeds that removes one’s free will to choose. It’s actually the forcing of good deeds that removes one’s free will because one is not allowed to “choose” the good behavior. The selfish, greedy man was not allowed to choose the sharing of the food. How could God punish a selfish, greedy man for “choosing” a bad deed when his freedom to “choose” a good deed was removed? 

If God removes a man’s ability to “choose” good, then God has removed this man’s ability to “choose” salvation. The salvation would be forced upon us, the love would no longer be love, but rather a forced servitude. Heaven would no longer be Heaven. If God removed all, a few, or even one evil manifestation, then God would be condemning the entire world by removing our ability to “choose” good such as salvation. Jesus said, “In this life, you will have suffering because I came not to condemn the world, but to save it.”

So God is forcing us to love him or burn in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored 

Here again, this question is based on false assumptions. It’s not God who condemns people to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored. Birth into sin combined with a lack of salvation is what condemns us. God is just providing a way out because he loves us. God is not capable of abuse because God is not capable of evil. Unrepentant sinners don’t really want God’s Heaven anyway. 

If God truly loved me, then he would not put conditions on going to Heaven. I thought it was a free gift. 

The “conditions” or salvation processes we must go through are not created to force the earning of one’s salvation. Rather, they are prearranged for the “receiving” of salvation. For example, I bought you a necklace. It’s a free gift that I’m offering to you and I paid the price. But if you never do any works such as holding out your hand, then you have rejected my gift. The offering of salvation and the receiving of salvation requires a covenant between two parties in which both parties are both giving and receiving.  

But if I can’t help being evil and didn’t ask to be born this way, why can’t God just love me the way I am and let me into Heaven anyway? And how does being sinful keep us out of Heaven?

God doesn't make evil, fallen man. The whole point of Heaven is to live in a perfect Paradise with no pain, sorrow, or suffering. The only way to have that environment is for Paradise to be sin free. Furthermore, there would be no point in letting unrepentant people into Heaven because sinners don’t really want Heaven in its current state anyway. If they don’t want to keep God’s commandments now, then they certainly won’t keep them for all eternity.

So why can’t God just lose the commandments and give me a more suitable Heaven with all the blessings? 

People complain about the violence, pain, and suffering here on the earth so they think the answer is to live like this forever? If you were blessed beyond your wildest dreams, how long do you think it would take a selfish, greedy, evil person to kill you and steal your blessings? Even if you had eternal life, and resurrected from the dead, and God gave you all your stuff back, you would spend eternity living the same boring cycle of having all your stuff taken and then be killed, only to resurrect and relive that same nightmare all over again for eternity. This would cause eternal misery. 

I hope this helps. Thanks and God Bless.


----------



## RH Clark

My answer is very simple. God doesn't stop bad things because he has given dominion of the earth to mankind. God will help people but only when we ask in faith based on his word.

 Jesus even gave us power over all the power of the enemy. The problem is we have no idea and walk around acting like everything that happens is because God wants it to happen. 

The biggest lie Satan gets us to believe is that it's really God doing everything bad that happens for some reason you just can't understand, and just maybe when you start acting right God will stop punishing you and start helping.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> My answer is very simple. God doesn't stop bad things because he has given dominion of the earth to mankind. God will help people but only when we ask in faith based on his word.
> 
> Jesus even gave us power over all the power of the enemy. The problem is we have no idea and walk around acting like everything that happens is because God wants it to happen.
> 
> The biggest lie Satan gets us to believe is that it's really God doing everything bad that happens for some reason you just can't understand, and just maybe when you start acting right God will stop punishing you and start helping.



Would dominion be related to free will? In relation to creating a baby/life. Does God give me and my wive the dominion, free will, or command to procreate Perhaps depending on our financial ability to take care of these procreated lives. I understand their souls are from God but I'm just wondering if I have any free will as it relates to sex, science, and birth control. Years ago the science of birth control wasn't advanced as it is now.

Sometimes bad things happen to expectant parents. Sometimes bad things happen to newborn babies such as abortion or crack moms. 
I too see dominion. There must be some human responsibility mixed in with God's power and his gift of dominion.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Sgalbraith said:


> Hi,
> 
> This is my one and only post here. I am keeping a promise to post this answer to this website so here goes.
> God doesn’t stop our free will because of the grace period. Physical manifestation of sin is what closes the door to repentance opportunities and changes the type of seed a person is planting which will change the harvest. In other words, if 3 boys decide to commit a robbery, any one of those boys could back out of that robbery up until the actual moment the sin is committed. The boy who backs out won’t go to prison like the other two boys. His punishment, rather, will be proportional to the soul.
> 
> I hope this helps. Thanks and God Bless.



I guess you can't respond by your self imposed rule but maybe others will. This grace period caught my eye. I've never heard that sin can cause salvation to be revoked according to a grace period ending. Especially only physical sin. That makes it sound like physical sin is worse than mental sin. That we receive salvation but only in some type of on going repentance instead of salvation by grace.
I've never understood this concept because I never know how much or how often one must repent. Weekly, daily, once an hour? I'm afraid my schedule might be off a few sins ago.

Anyhow I've never heard it expressed as "the door to repentance opportunities" closing or changing the harvest as sin defining a Christian's salvation.
I'll just have to conclude that Jesus died for my sins past, present, and future.

I'm also pretty sure lust is as bad as adultery in the eyes of God and how he considers sin. This was Paul's lesson in Romans 1 & 2 as he presented this terrible group of heterosexual perverts to show that we are all without excuse and equally as guilty.
Paul also did this in 1 Corinthians 6 when he showed this terribly evil lot and then says "and such were some of you, but you were washed."


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> Would dominion be related to free will? In relation to creating a baby/life. Does God give me and my wive the dominion, free will, or command to procreate Perhaps depending on our financial ability to take care of these procreated lives. I understand their souls are from God but I'm just wondering if I have any free will as it relates to sex, science, and birth control. Years ago the science of birth control wasn't advanced as it is now.
> 
> Sometimes bad things happen to expectant parents. Sometimes bad things happen to newborn babies such as abortion or crack moms.
> I too see dominion. There must be some human responsibility mixed in with God's power and his gift of dominion.



Yes, dominion is simply the authority to have free will. It's like God handing an earth lease over to man. Man now has free will to do whatever he pleases until the lease expires. 

Bad things happen because we live in a fallen world. Sin can cause some open doors for Satan, but that doesn't mean that bad things don't happen to good people.


----------



## Sgalbraith

*Why God doesn't stop bad things from happening*

When I said one and only post on this forum I meant "on this forum". I should have left my e-mail where people could reach me if they wanted to discuss this further. I run a full-time ministry and I'm sorry I don't have time to man this website too. If you want to discuss this further, I'm at childofgod515@gmail.com. Thanks


----------



## hummerpoo

Sgalbraith said:


> ...The whole point of Heaven is to live in a perfect Paradise with no pain, sorrow, or suffering...



Kinda says it all, doesn't it.


----------



## pnome

Sgalbraith said:


> God does not allow pain and suffering. What he allows is free will. And because God does not allow pain and suffering and because God is not responsible for pain and suffering, God has provided healing and joy.



What does "free will" have to do with a devout Christian woman getting breast cancer?   What about her "free will" caused her to deserve that pain and suffering?  The long, drawn out, and painful death, and the heartbreak of her family?

Free will had nothing to do with it.  But God allowed it.  And, despite many prayers and pleadings, he provided no healing and no joy.


----------



## RH Clark

pnome said:


> What does "free will" have to do with a devout Christian woman getting breast cancer?   What about her "free will" caused her to deserve that pain and suffering?  The long, drawn out, and painful death, and the heartbreak of her family?
> 
> Free will had nothing to do with it.  But God allowed it.  And, despite many prayers and pleadings, he provided no healing and no joy.



Her free will didn't cause cancer but free will was given to Adam who allowed sin into the world which is where the cancer came from. God doesn't have anything to do with anyone getting cancer. God did provide healing though. Jesus paid a terrible price for healing.

I can't say why everyone who asks and prays for healing isn't healed. I can say for certain that it isn't because God is holding it back from them. In fact as far as God is concerned it's already done, just like salvation. Jesus already paid the price for both and sat down at the right hand of God expecting until his enemies be made his footstool. Both still however must be received.

Another thing with a disease like cancer is that we as believers who have been given authority must stand against it and cast it out. We have to cast it out just like we would cast out an evil spirit. If someone had a demon we wouldn't pray and ask God to remove the demon. Jesus told us to cast it out, not ask him to cast it out. Jesus gave that authority to us and will not take it back. Too many times we only pray though and ask Jesus to do something.


I would like to say that I am very sorry for your loss. I hope I didn't sound too harsh above or sound like I was saying enough wasn't done. I just feel so strongly that these things need to be said that I say them hoping that someone else could be helped. Cancer is a foul disease which I despise.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

pnome said:


> What does "free will" have to do with a devout Christian woman getting breast cancer?   What about her "free will" caused her to deserve that pain and suffering?  The long, drawn out, and painful death, and the heartbreak of her family?
> 
> Free will had nothing to do with it.  But God allowed it.  And, despite many prayers and pleadings, he provided no healing and no joy.



as a Christian, I believe she was healed.  Either in this earthly existence or in her heavenly existence.  You see, we live in a temporary world. Life here is very short, and has its trials, troubles and issues.  But, as the Bible teaches, we are not of this world, but citizens of heaven.  Just as being a US citizen has its benefits, being a citizen of Heaven has its benefits.  

Sometimes we suffer because we made stupid decisions, sometimes we suffer because someone close to us makes stupid decisions, sometimes we suffer because of reasons we can't understand. It may be to teach us a lesson. It may be to change our perspective on something. It may be that we will not know why we suffer now.  But there is a big picture, and when you are part of the frame, it is hard to see the all the brush strokes that the artist is using to make a beautiful portrait.


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> Her free will didn't cause cancer but free will was given to Adam who allowed sin into the world which is where the cancer came from. God doesn't have anything to do with anyone getting cancer. God did provide healing though. Jesus paid a terrible price for healing.
> 
> I can't say why everyone who asks and prays for healing isn't healed. I can say for certain that it isn't because God is holding it back from them. In fact as far as God is concerned it's already done, just like salvation. Jesus already paid the price for both



Adams sin did not bring physical death in the world.
 Adam was told that he would die in the day he took of the fruit. He did die in that day, but it was spiritual death ( separation from God) cast from the garden.

This is also backed by Romans 5:14 that says death reigned from Adam to Moses. If it were physical death, it would have reigned from Abel to Moses.

Also Jesus died a substitutionary death, that we wouldn't have to. If Adams curse that Jesus stood in our place to take away were physical death, we could all sit around and get this info straight from Paul himself. 

 Physical death and ailments is a part of this world always has been, always will be...that's one of the reasons we yearn for the spiritual realm.


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> Adams sin did not bring physical death in the world.
> Adam was told that he would die in the day he took of the fruit. He did die in that day, but it was spiritual death ( separation from God) cast from the garden.
> 
> This is also backed by Romans 5:14 that says death reigned from Adam to Moses. If it were physical death, it would have reigned from Abel to Moses.
> 
> Also Jesus died a substitutionary death, that we wouldn't have to. If Adams curse that Jesus stood in our place to take away were physical death, we could all sit around and get this info straight from Paul himself.
> 
> Physical death and ailments is a part of this world always has been, always will be...that's one of the reasons we yearn for the spiritual realm.



I would partially agree with you, however Adam's sin did have the consequence of physical death also. God cast them out of the garden lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever.

I'm not really talking just about physical death but rather sickness and disease which did enter into the world through sin. Jesus went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil. In Luke 13 Jesus healed the woman whom Satan had bound for 13 years. Jesus makes it very clear in John 10:10 that it is the thief who comes to steal, kill and destroy.

Yes, sickness and death is part of this physical world but they are here because of Satan's influence, not because of God's will. Jesus did tell us that in this world we would have tribulations but he also told us to be of good cheer for he had overcome the world. I guess I differ with your thinking in that I consider myself one with Christ, so if he has overcome the world then so have I. I will simply believe his promise in Psalm 103 that his benefit for me is that he forgives all my iniquities and heals all my diseases.


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> I would partially agree with you, however Adam's sin did have the consequence of physical death also. God cast them out of the garden lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever.
> 
> I'm not really talking just about physical death but rather sickness and disease which did enter into the world through sin. Jesus went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil. In Luke 13 Jesus healed the woman whom Satan had bound for 13 years. Jesus makes it very clear in John 10:10 that it is the thief who comes to steal, kill and destroy.
> 
> Yes, sickness and death is part of this physical world but they are here because of Satan's influence, not because of God's will. Jesus did tell us that in this world we would have tribulations but he also told us to be of good cheer for he had overcome the world. I guess I differ with your thinking in that I consider myself one with Christ, so if he has overcome the world then so have I. I will simply believe his promise in Psalm 103 that his benefit for me is that he forgives all my iniquities and heals all my diseases.



Did Adams sin bring sickness and death upon animals in your opinion?

Of course Jesus healed the sick, and blind, and the lame. It was part of His Messianic mission. He was able to give that gift to His apostles also, but no man has had that gift since.


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> Did Adams sin bring sickness and death upon animals in your opinion?
> 
> Of course Jesus healed the sick, and blind, and the lame. It was part of His Messianic mission. He was able to give that gift to His apostles also, but no man has had that gift since.



As far as sickness and death for animals, I would say yes since Adam's sin effected a lot more than just himself. Adam had been given authority over the earth and even more than we realize. Adam's sin effected even Heaven. Jesus had to go into the real tabernacle in Heaven and cleanse it with his blood according to Hebrews 9: 22-24.

I will just disagree with you about healing being available today. I've already witnessed it too many times for you to convince me otherwise. I have never held the notion that men heal and those who could have died out. Even Jesus told us repeatedly that it was not him doing the works but the Father in him. It is now and always has been God who heals.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I don't see how Adam's sin brought cancer into the world. Cancer is caused when cells grow wrong or out of control. This could happen in plants and animals.
Some things we see as bad such as mosquitos, small pox, AIDs, etc. are just part of God's creation.
Our dominion takes over or our freewill in how we live with all of God's creation.
We might consider STD's as bad but in reality they are no different than Avocado's or Truffles in the eyes of the Creator.
We do have science as a part of our dominion to control what we as individuals "see" as bad creations.
I don't see how one can say Adam's sin caused plant & animal mutations or earthquakes.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Adams sin did not bring physical death in the world.
> Adam was told that he would die in the day he took of the fruit. He did die in that day, but it was spiritual death ( separation from God) cast from the garden.
> 
> This is also backed by Romans 5:14 that says death reigned from Adam to Moses. If it were physical death, it would have reigned from Abel to Moses.
> 
> Also Jesus died a substitutionary death, that we wouldn't have to. If Adams curse that Jesus stood in our place to take away were physical death, we could all sit around and get this info straight from Paul himself.
> 
> Physical death and ailments is a part of this world always has been, always will be...that's one of the reasons we yearn for the spiritual realm.



I do agree that Adam's sin brought spiritual death and not physical death. I don't understand why Jesus had to die physically to experience spiritual death.(separation from God)
 If the death of Jesus was a substitutionary spiritual death for us, why did he need to die physically?
No to readdress his resurrection again, just his death.

I was thinking maybe we couldn't experience spiritual death without first experiencing physical death but Adam did.


----------



## Artfuldodger

We could look at this question as posed in the opposite;

"Why does good things happen to bad people?"   
                                                                                Then we'd have to answer who bad people are. Evil Christians, bad Pagans, good Hindus and on & on.
I'm thinking Christianity has more to do with salvation from the cause of evil than "good & evil."
We must realize as others have said that this world is temporary, our rewards are in Heaven, and that God's rain falls on all.
Now if his rain falls on all then so must his drought.

Psalm 73:2-5
2But as for me, my feet came close to stumbling, My steps had almost slipped. 3For I was envious of the arrogant As I saw the prosperity of the wicked. 4For there are no pains in their death, And their body is fat. 5They are free from common human burdens; they are not plagued by human ills.

Somehow we must work dominion, free will, and God's predestined plan all together. We know that with privilege comes money and with money comes health. 
A poor region such as Appalachia has it's share of health problems as well as social problems influenced by poverty. Yet these areas are pretty much populated by very religious individuals.

Dominion started before Adam sinned. God's decree to procreate started before Adams' sin. So even before Adam sinned plants and animals died. They surely died of cancer, viruses, and bacterial infections as the decree to procreate and for us to have dominion.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> I do agree that Adam's sin brought spiritual death and not physical death. I don't understand why Jesus had to die physically to experience spiritual death.(separation from God)
> If the death of Jesus was a substitutionary spiritual death for us, why did he need to die physically?
> No to readdress his resurrection again, just his death.
> 
> I was thinking maybe we couldn't experience spiritual death without first experiencing physical death but Adam did.



It was all done according to prophecy. The Israelites were seeing prophecy fulfilled right before their eyes and could not legitimately deny it.

As for animals which we just happen to also be. Death and illness is part of God's natural order. Eternity on Earth is never promised, but the spiritual realm is where we find Him.


----------



## EverGreen1231

A better question: Why would God allow good things to happen?


----------



## welderguy

"Why doesn't God prevent bad things from happening?"

It's in the darkest moments when our light can shine the brightest.
He said " let your light so shine among men,that they may see your good works and glorify your Father,which is in heaven." Not for our glory but His.

Another reason, it's in those dark times that we draw the closest to Him,if we are made to understand our great need for Him.

"Yea,though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,I will fear no evil.For thou art with me."


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't see how Adam's sin brought cancer into the world. Cancer is caused when cells grow wrong or out of control. This could happen in plants and animals.
> Some things we see as bad such as mosquitos, small pox, AIDs, etc. are just part of God's creation.
> Our dominion takes over or our freewill in how we live with all of God's creation.
> We might consider STD's as bad but in reality they are no different than Avocado's or Truffles in the eyes of the Creator.
> We do have science as a part of our dominion to control what we as individuals "see" as bad creations.
> I don't see how one can say Adam's sin caused plant & animal mutations or earthquakes.



Not everything that exists is part of God's creation. Much came about because of the curse that sin brought. The scripture specifically names the thorn and thistle as existing because of the curse Gen.3:18. The word creature in Romans 8:19-22 is speaking of all creation. It says that it waits in expectation for the manifestation of the sons of God, and that it was not made subject to vanity willingly.

All sickness and disease exists because of sin's curse. They are not part of God's perfect creation. There is no sickness or disease in Heaven,  and when God takes back the earth from man there will be an end to sickness and disease. God doesn't allow it in Heaven and will end it on earth because he doesn't approve of it.


----------



## hummerpoo

EverGreen1231 said:


> A better question: Why would God allow good things to happen?





welderguy said:


> "Why doesn't God prevent bad things from happening?"
> 
> It's in the darkest moments when our light can shine the brightest.
> He said " let your light so shine among men,that they may see your good works and glorify your Father,which is in heaven." Not for our glory but His.
> 
> Another reason, it's in those dark times that we draw the closest to Him,if we are made to understand our great need for Him.
> 
> "Yea,though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,I will fear no evil.For thou art with me."



Two good answers.

I would fail if I attempted to do as well, but am convince that no answer based on a man centered creation can be found.   Only a God centered view provides answers.  All other views only build idols.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> Not everything that exists is part of God's creation. ...



Excuse me???


----------



## EverGreen1231

RH Clark said:


> Not everything that exists is part of God's creation. Much came about because of the curse that sin brought. The scripture specifically names the thorn and thistle as existing because of the curse Gen.3:18. The word creature in Romans 8:19-22 is speaking of all creation. It says that it waits in expectation for the manifestation of the sons of God, and that it was not made subject to vanity willingly.
> 
> All sickness and disease exists because of sin's curse. They are not part of God's perfect creation. There is no sickness or disease in Heaven,  and when God takes back the earth from man there will be an end to sickness and disease. God doesn't allow it in Heaven and will end it on earth because he doesn't approve of it.



I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Much like dogs can't understand our purpose for our actions, neither can we perceive God's unless told expressly. However the question is framed we can find solace in the fact that we don't understand.


----------



## GunnSmokeer

What I want to know is, why does God get the credit when things go well ("I am so blessed, thank you Jesus for this good thing that just happened to me. I know you're in control of everything. God's power to bless his children is limitless.")

And yet, when things go bad, and I mean really bad (premature death of children and young adults who do not seem to have had a chance to fulfill their life's purpose, whatever that was), we hear: 
"Oh, that's Satan. This is Satan's world. We shouldn't fret over what happens here on Earth, because this world belongs to the Devil and everything here is "of the flesh" and we should look forward to meeting Jesus in heaven.  God's in control THERE. Can't wait to get there.  Here, we'e supposed to suffer because this world isn't our home."


----------



## GunnSmokeer

Christians like to point to Job.  God made (or allowed) Job to suffer. But it was all for a greater purpose-- to win a bet with Satan. Job's suffering was only temporary.  God restored everything he lost, and then some.

However, what about Job's kids?  They were not restored. They were killed. Slaughtered just to prove a point about how Job would or would not react.

They were not brought back to life. They were replaced with a new crop of children. Job's first set of kids did not have temporary suffering to teach them a lesson. They were killed.


----------



## hummerpoo

GunnSmokeer said:


> What I want to know is, why does God get the credit when things go well ("I am so blessed, thank you Jesus for this good thing that just happened to me. I know you're in control of everything. God's power to bless his children is limitless.")
> 
> And yet, when things go bad, and I mean really bad (premature death of children and young adults who do not seem to have had a chance to fulfill their life's purpose, whatever that was), we hear:
> "Oh, that's Satan. This is Satan's world. We shouldn't fret over what happens here on Earth, because this world belongs to the Devil and everything here is "of the flesh" and we should look forward to meeting Jesus in heaven.  God's in control THERE. Can't wait to get there.  Here, we'e supposed to suffer because this world isn't our home."





GunnSmokeer said:


> Christians like to point to Job.  God made (or allowed) Job to suffer. But it was all for a greater purpose-- to win a bet with Satan. Job's suffering was only temporary.  God restored everything he lost, and then some.
> 
> However, what about Job's kids?  They were not restored. They were killed. Slaughtered just to prove a point about how Job would or would not react.
> 
> They were not brought back to life. They were replaced with a new crop of children. Job's first set of kids did not have temporary suffering to teach them a lesson. They were killed.



this



hummerpoo said:


> ... no answer based on a man centered creation can be found.   Only a God centered view provides answers.  All other views only build idols.


----------



## Artfuldodger

"Why would God allow good things to happen?"

Without good, there would be no evil. Without evil there would be no good.


----------



## EverGreen1231

GunnSmokeer said:


> What I want to know is, why does God get the credit when things go well ("I am so blessed, thank you Jesus for this good thing that just happened to me. I know you're in control of everything. God's power to bless his children is limitless.")
> 
> And yet, when things go bad, and I mean really bad (premature death of children and young adults who do not seem to have had a chance to fulfill their life's purpose, whatever that was), we hear:
> "Oh, that's Satan. This is Satan's world. We shouldn't fret over what happens here on Earth, because this world belongs to the Devil and everything here is "of the flesh" and we should look forward to meeting Jesus in heaven.  God's in control THERE. Can't wait to get there.  Here, we'e supposed to suffer because this world isn't our home."





GunnSmokeer said:


> Christians like to point to Job.  God made (or allowed) Job to suffer. But it was all for a greater purpose-- to win a bet with Satan. Job's suffering was only temporary.  God restored everything he lost, and then some.
> 
> However, what about Job's kids?  They were not restored. They were killed. Slaughtered just to prove a point about how Job would or would not react.
> 
> They were not brought back to life. They were replaced with a new crop of children. Job's first set of kids did not have temporary suffering to teach them a lesson. They were killed.






			
				EverGreen1231 said:
			
		

> Much like dogs can't understand our purpose for our actions, neither can we perceive God's unless told expressly.


This too^.


----------



## EverGreen1231

Artfuldodger said:


> "Why would God allow good things to happen?"
> 
> Without good, there would be no evil. Without evil there would be no good.



This is so lamentably wrong I'm even sure how to respond.

God is good. There is found in Him no darkness nor shadow of turning.


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> Adams sin did not bring physical death in the world.
> Adam was told that he would die in the day he took of the fruit. He did die in that day, but it was spiritual death ( separation from God) cast from the garden.
> 
> A case could be presented that  Eve was not spiritually dead when she `conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.` And does not scripture read, `And he ( Seth) call his (son)name Enos: Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.` I personally don`t read that Eve, Cain, and Seth were spiritually dead.
> 
> This is also backed by Romans 5:14 that says death reigned from Adam to Moses. If it were physical death, it would have reigned from Abel to Moses.
> 
> The earth, and man`s food, was cursed before Abel. ``Cursed is the ground for thy sake``, was said to Adam and Eve. (  Could it be that suffering has redemptive properties. )
> 
> Also Jesus died a substitutionary death, that we wouldn't have to. If Adams curse that Jesus stood in our place to take away were physical death, we could all sit around and get this info straight from Paul himself.
> 
> We never had to die a substitutionary death. Scripture seems clear to me that all the earth will get healed by God`s love, grace, charity to us at some point. We will all get rid of death when we no longer know to look on it( the earth and all of God`s creation) in the paradigm of good and evil. We are on our way for the life and cross of Jesus ( the example) and the promises.
> 
> Physical death and ailments is a part of this world always has been, always will be...that's one of the reasons we yearn for the spiritual realm.
> 
> 
> It( the earth) was not always cursed. It was not cursed by sin in the beginning. At some point the food of the earth was not poison.
> 
> Perhaps the reason we yearn for the spiritual realm is that God ` placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, an a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.` And so all know God to be guarded and yet `with us.`



I woke up this morning knowing I had a big days work ahead of me... that I need to do if only to get rid of financial worry that would draw me away from prayer.

So I woke up with symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis, Gout and Fibromyalgia. In other words I physically feel like Judas before he died.  I feel poisoned. I ate something yesterday... probably instant oatmeal.... who know...

So I`m going to drag myself to the grind stone right after this regardless. 

But what is positive about my condition. How many sins would I have committed today if I was feeling `good` and I was up and about to rid all the `bad` in everyone else`s business.

Have a good day... Paul said he suffered life as a continuation of Jesus suffering on the cross. So suffering must be important, perhaps not in seeing it good or bad, but in something that resets the heart to Divine love, to first love, when the earth our food was not cursed and my Lord not guarded by Cherubims or heaven.


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> I woke up this morning knowing I had a big days work ahead of me... that I need to do if only to get rid of financial worry that would draw me away from prayer.
> 
> So I woke up with symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis, Gout and Fibromyalgia. In other words I physically feel like Judas before he died.  I feel poisoned. I ate something yesterday... probably instant oatmeal.... who know...
> 
> So I`m going to drag myself to the grind stone right after this regardless.
> 
> But what is positive about my condition. How many sins would I have committed today if I was feeling `good` and I was up and about to rid all the `bad` in everyone else`s business.
> 
> Have a good day... Paul said he suffered life as a continuation of Jesus suffering on the cross. So suffering must be important, perhaps not in seeing it good or bad, but in something that resets the heart to Divine love, to first love, when the earth our food was not cursed and my Lord not guarded by Cherubims or heaven.



 Thanks Gordo, I needed that.


----------



## RH Clark

EverGreen1231 said:


> This is so lamentably wrong I'm even sure how to respond.
> 
> God is good. There is found in Him no darkness nor shadow of turning.



I'm sorry, didn't you just say in post 321 that God creates evil? Which is it? Are you saying that evil is good?

I personally do not take the word translated as evil to actually mean evil, in the way we think of evil, that you quoted in post 321. It is more along the line of distress which may or may not be evil. I do believe that God can place us in what seems to be trying situations to us but God does not bring the things into our lives that steal, kill, or destroy.


----------



## RH Clark

gordon 2 said:


> I woke up this morning knowing I had a big days work ahead of me... that I need to do if only to get rid of financial worry that would draw me away from prayer.
> 
> So I woke up with symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis, Gout and Fibromyalgia. In other words I physically feel like Judas before he died.  I feel poisoned. I ate something yesterday... probably instant oatmeal.... who know...
> 
> So I`m going to drag myself to the grind stone right after this regardless.
> 
> But what is positive about my condition. How many sins would I have committed today if I was feeling `good` and I was up and about to rid all the `bad` in everyone else`s business.
> 
> Have a good day... Paul said he suffered life as a continuation of Jesus suffering on the cross. So suffering must be important, perhaps not in seeing it good or bad, but in something that resets the heart to Divine love, to first love, when the earth our food was not cursed and my Lord not guarded by Cherubims or heaven.



Why look at things in the negative? How much good could you accomplish today if feeling better? I do not see any promises in my bible that God will cause me to feel horrible for my own good and thus prevent sin. Jesus has already taken care of the sin problem and if you are saved you stand completely righteous before God, even when you sin, otherwise you would need to be saved again about every 5 minuets.

Focus on the scriptures that say God satisfies your mouth with good things and renews your strength like the eagle's, that God forgives all your iniquities and heals all your diseases, the joy of the Lord is your strength. With long life God will satisfy you and show you his salvation. Need I go on? LOL


----------



## gordon 2

RH Clark said:


> Why look at things in the negative? How much good could you accomplish today if feeling better? I do not see any promises in my bible that God will cause me to feel horrible for my own good and thus prevent sin. Jesus has already taken care of the sin problem and if you are saved you stand completely righteous before God, even when you sin, otherwise you would need to be saved again about every 5 minuets.
> 
> Focus on the scriptures that say God satisfies your mouth with good things and renews your strength like the eagle's, that God forgives all your iniquities and heals all your diseases, the joy of the Lord is your strength. With long life God will satisfy you and show you his salvation. Need I go on? LOL



 I know what your saying. And I know what is said about the shoemakers shoes.

It seems to me in outlook, so far in my spiritual poverty, that God grants favors in a least two ways regards suffering. He removes it or He consoles that we endure it. 

It would seem some need a quick fix to start or revive faith, and others having received thankfully are just as happy limping all the way to the bank depositing and withdrawing.

Joshua and many wrestle(d) with God and for it in part they are injured physically. God`s  will seems to be that suffering still needs to be the lot of sinners and saints--for now.

As a father to the Hebrews God really pushed his children around perhaps not unlike the nuns I once had in school who loved you heaps with affections one day and then strapped you heaps with devotion the next. 

As  the Holy Spirit, God now is my example of the heavenly and the hear and now. ( My parent, and my teacher are my examples.)

As the Son I look back to the day Jesus walked with Adam and I look to  a complete recovery when that day again will come. I also look at how Jesus dished out charity.

PS ( off topic) CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored eagles are scavengers and they stink to high heaven. Being a taxidermist I know what I`m talking about. Eagles when they fly might be the object of romantic poetry but when they come to earth to feed and get energy they are really foul. Like squirrels are like rats with fancy tails, eagles are like vultures with innocent looking heads. .... 



But I agree suffering is a cumbersome worry for everyone.


----------



## RH Clark

gordon 2 said:


> I know what your saying. And I know what is said about the shoemakers shoes.
> 
> It seems to me in outlook, so far in my spiritual poverty, that God grants favors in a least two ways regards suffering. He removes it or He consoles that we endure it.
> 
> It would seem some need a quick fix to start or revive faith, and others having received thankfully are just as happy limping all the way to the bank depositing and withdrawing.
> 
> Joshua and many wrestle(d) with God and for it in part they are injured physically. God`s  will seems to be that suffering still needs to be the lot of sinners and saints--for now.
> 
> As a father to the Hebrews God really pushed his children around perhaps not unlike the nuns I once had in school who loved you heaps with affections one day and then strapped you heaps with devotion the next.
> 
> As  the Holy Spirit, God now is my example of the heavenly and the hear and now.
> 
> As the Son I look back to the day Jesus walked with Adam and I look to  a complete recovery when that day again will come.
> 
> 
> 
> But I agree suffering is a cumbersome worry for everyone.



I wish you the best friend. I don't think we can look though at the OT and use it in regards to us today. In the OT sin would bring destruction unless a sin offering was made. When you see God's people destroyed it is because of sin. God didn't want them destroyed though or he would not have set up the priesthood and the ability to make offerings for sin. All of those sin offerings were to point to the one true offering to come in Jesus. In the NT that offering has been made and God is not punishing the sin of those who have accepted it.

In this world there will be suffering, but it doesn't come from God. He may use that suffering to teach us things but that does not mean he caused it for that purpose. If my young daughter burns herself on the stove, I will use that pain to teach her a lesson about fire safety, but I didn't orchestrate events so that she would be burned. That's the manner in which I see God teaching us through suffering. 

God says that he sets before us life and death but he tells us to choose life. Get that "choose life". He doesn't say that he chooses for us, which is what most Christians believe. They think that everything happens because it's God's will for it to happen and we just don't always understand God's will. I don't agree with that at all. Paul tells us to put on the whole armor of God that we may be able to stand against the attacks of the devil. Evidently we are in a spiritual battle. Part of that armor is the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God. Is it a coincidence that the psalms tell us that death and life are in the power of the tongue? If you want to win this warfare, then speak God's word over your situation. Tell that arthritis to leave your body and proclaim that according to God's word in Psalms 103 that he heals all your diseases. Not everything that happens is God's will for didn't Jesus tell us to pray for God's will to be done on earth as in Heaven? That tells me that it isn't always done without prayer.


----------



## Artfuldodger

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In relation to evil, why was the Word with God "in the beginning?"


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> John 1:1
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> 
> In relation to evil, why was the Word with God "in the beginning?"



I don't see those scriptures as having anything to do with evil. They are saying that the beginning is the Word, and that the  Word was both with God and was also God. Then John goes on to say that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. I see these scriptures as confirming the trinity that Jesus was God and was with God in the beginning before becoming flesh and being the man Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Why was the Word needed or what was God's plan for the Word if he is and was before evil entered the world?

Then later when evil entered the world you said "All of those sin offerings were to point to the one true offering to come in Jesus."
It's as almost like there was a plan, "in the beginning" otherwise why was the Word with God "in the beginning?"
Then later when sin showed up, the plan was to show us the way of salvation in the true offering of Jesus. Is this correct?

Otherwise God is basing his action on our actions. His plan changing with ours.


----------



## gordon 2

RH Clark said:


> I wish you the best friend. I don't think we can look though at the OT and use it in regards to us today. In the OT sin would bring destruction unless a sin offering was made. When you see God's people destroyed it is because of sin. God didn't want them destroyed though or he would not have set up the priesthood and the ability to make offerings for sin. All of those sin offerings were to point to the one true offering to come in Jesus. In the NT that offering has been made and God is not punishing the sin of those who have accepted it.
> 
> In this world there will be suffering, but it doesn't come from God. He may use that suffering to teach us things but that does not mean he caused it for that purpose. If my young daughter burns herself on the stove, I will use that pain to teach her a lesson about fire safety, but I didn't orchestrate events so that she would be burned. That's the manner in which I see God teaching us through suffering.
> 
> God says that he sets before us life and death but he tells us to choose life. Get that "choose life". He doesn't say that he chooses for us, which is what most Christians believe. They think that everything happens because it's God's will for it to happen and we just don't always understand God's will. I don't agree with that at all. Paul tells us to put on the whole armor of God that we may be able to stand against the attacks of the devil. Evidently we are in a spiritual battle. Part of that armor is the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God. Is it a coincidence that the psalms tell us that death and life are in the power of the tongue? If you want to win this warfare, then speak God's word over your situation. Tell that arthritis to leave your body and proclaim that according to God's word in Psalms 103 that he heals all your diseases. Not everything that happens is God's will for didn't Jesus tell us to pray for God's will to be done on earth as in Heaven? That tells me that it isn't always done without prayer.



Prophet heal thyself... hum...

I would suggest that even for one who  is `saved` by the blood of the Lamb, the world he lives in still fallen. Not only this, but what makes it that he ( a person saved) cannot sin is his access to forgiveness and not the act of sinning itself. Because we do sin and we do suffer consequence, temporal and spiritual. 

Alot of people  are still ashamed of their bodies ( Christians included) many days since Eve first indicated her guilt in that she might need a change of wardrobe. Seems the old girl noticed stretch marks negatively, from that they were things of beauty just a few days back.

The marines have a saying, ` Pain is weakness leaving the body.` Esprit de corp or what!

It is my will to love God and to let Him love me. Yet at your suggestion I`ve made an appointement with our physician. The poultice has something to do with a small bit of  earth rolled up and applied-- said to kill it. We`ll see...

PS. I am not at war with pain and suffering. My nursing is bring water to the lame, and carrying some of our burdens to the point of forgetting mine.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> Why was the Word needed or what was God's plan for the Word if he is and was before evil entered the world?
> 
> Then later when evil entered the world you said "All of those sin offerings were to point to the one true offering to come in Jesus."
> It's as almost like there was a plan, "in the beginning" otherwise why was the Word with God "in the beginning?"
> Then later when sin showed up, the plan was to show us the way of salvation in the true offering of Jesus. Is this correct?
> 
> Otherwise God is basing his action on our actions.



God spoke creation into being out of love.
Man spoke sin into being out of ignorance.

Simply man was out of order trying to create for himself a nature which was not his to have.

Jesus and the disciples are examples of how to act in our world. But in this imitation we should not assume the nature of God to ourselves and be our own gods. This has been proven a great disorder.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> Why was the Word needed or what was God's plan for the Word if he is and was before evil entered the world?
> 
> Then later when evil entered the world you said "All of those sin offerings were to point to the one true offering to come in Jesus."
> It's as almost like there was a plan, "in the beginning" otherwise why was the Word with God "in the beginning?"
> Then later when sin showed up, the plan was to show us the way of salvation in the true offering of Jesus. Is this correct?
> 
> Otherwise God is basing his action on our actions.



I think that there was certainly a plan from the beginning. Scripture tells us that Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. I do not however think that because God knew exactly what would happen that what happened was his will. We could say that it was God's permissive will but not necessarily his perfect will.

Look at it like this. I have 4 children. It's not my will that any of them sin or that any of them suffer, yet I know that going out into the world, they will sin and they will suffer. Did I bring them into this world to sin or suffer, NO! Was it my plan that they sin and suffer, NO! Yet I certainly knew before their birth that they would both sin and suffer, because I knew that they would have free will, free choice and have to live in a fallen and sinful world. This is the way I see our Father God concerning us.

Now you may ask why have sin in the world at all. I do not believe that God wanted sin in the world even though he knew it would be in the world. What God created wasn't sin but a choice. That's what the tree of good and evil was, a choice. Why was a choice necessary though? Because true love cannot exist without the choice to hate. Obedience cannot exist without the choice of disobedience. Just like big cannot exist without a reference to what is small. In order for God to have children that would love him and obey him, he had to give them the choice to hate him, and to disobey. Without that choice their is no free will and God would have only created robots to do whatever he programed them to do.


----------



## RH Clark

gordon 2 said:


> Prophet heal thyself... hum...
> 
> I would suggest that even for one who  is `saved` by the blood of the Lamb, the world he lives in still fallen. Not only this, but what makes it that he ( a person saved) cannot sin is his access to forgiveness and not the act of sinning itself. Because we do sin and we do suffer consequence, temporal and spiritual.
> 
> Alot of people  are still ashamed of their bodies ( Christians included) many days since Eve first indicated her guilt in that she might need a change of wardrobe. Seems the old girl noticed stretch marks negatively, from that they were things of beauty just a few days back.
> 
> The marines have a saying, ` Pain is weakness leaving the body.` Esprit de corp or what!
> 
> It is my will to love God and to let Him love me. Yet at your suggestion I`ve made an appointement with our physician. The poultice has something to do with a small bit of  earth rolled up and applied-- said to kill it. We`ll see...
> 
> PS. I am not at war with pain and suffering. My nursing is bring water to the lame, and carrying some of our burdens to the point of forgetting mine.



I hope the poultice helps. I believe all healing is from God even if he uses doctors to get it to us. Jesus already carried all your burdens though, cast it all on him, there is no need for you to carry it. Only faith pleases God, have faith that Jesus carries your burdens for you and cares for you, then take that message out to help others. God bless!


----------



## gordon 2

RH Clark said:


> I hope the poultice helps. I believe all healing is from God even if he uses doctors to get it to us. Jesus already carried all your burdens though, cast it all on him, there is no need for you to carry it. Only faith pleases God, have faith that Jesus carries your burdens for you and cares for you, then take that message out to help others. God bless!



Brother, you faith alone is my healing. It is so nice to see. -- You might just  be the small  piece of rolled up earth and be my poultice, but you faith is not small... LOL.... thanks.


----------



## RH Clark

gordon 2 said:


> Brother, you faith alone is my healing. It is so nice to see. -- You might just  be the small  piece of rolled up earth and be my poultice, but you faith is not small... LOL.... thanks.



Your words touch me and humble me, but no credit is mine. If I manage to say anything good it's certainly God and not me. Yet I am encouraged, for is it not our calling to show God and not ourselves? I've certainly shown myself many times, and for that I am ashamed.


----------



## EverGreen1231

RH Clark said:


> I'm sorry, didn't you just say in post 321 that God creates evil? Which is it? Are you saying that evil is good?
> 
> I personally do not take the word translated as evil to actually mean evil, in the way we think of evil, that you quoted in post 321. It is more along the line of distress which may or may not be evil. I do believe that God can place us in what seems to be trying situations to us but God does not bring the things into our lives that steal, kill, or destroy.



I said nothing, that's the Lord's Word. Take it or leave, but don't try and change it.

What was wrong with his statement was the assertion that without evil there could be no good. This means there is no heaven (clearly unscriptural), God is not good (also, clearly unscriptural), Satan can't be labeled fairly as the adversary (again, clearly unscriptural). I like trying to turn a phrase, but I make double sure that phrase is biblical as best as I can discern.

Creating evil is not the same as being evil. There is also the consideration of God's perspective vs. our own. What we call evil, God calls good in many cases.

The word evil as described when the KJV was translated means the same thing now as it did then.

By Him all things consist. God is all in all.


----------



## EverGreen1231

Artfuldodger said:


> John 1:1
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> 
> In relation to evil, why was the Word with God "in the beginning?"



Your quoted scripture answers your question.


----------



## RH Clark

EverGreen1231 said:


> I said nothing, that's the Lord's Word. Take it or leave, but don't try and change it.
> 
> What was wrong with his statement was the assertion that without evil there could be no good. This means there is no heaven (clearly unscriptural), God is not good (also, clearly unscriptural), Satan can't be labeled fairly as the adversary (again, clearly unscriptural). I like trying to turn a phrase, but I make double sure that phrase is biblical as best as I can discern.
> 
> Creating evil is not the same as being evil. There is also the consideration of God's perspective vs. our own. What we call evil, God calls good in many cases.
> 
> The word evil as described when the KJV was translated means the same thing now as it did then.
> 
> By Him all things consist. God is all in all.



Sorry, but I'll just have to disagree with you. The KJV is not the end all be all of translations and it sometimes takes farther study to see exactly what God's word says, God's word being his original word and not necessarily what the translators decided to use. I do think the KJV is one of our best translations though and use it quite often.

All that talk of being and creating evil not being the same and not having proper perspective is just a religious cop out to me. It's just man trying to twist anything to fit his decided bible doctrine, so much to say that evil is actually good when looked at from the correct perspective.

I take the meaning of evil in that scripture to be more along the line of calamity. The word evil you quoted is actually the word "rah". It is used 663 times in the KJV and translated evil 431 of those times. The other times it is not translated as evil but trouble, calamity, adversity, among other things.

You quoted two scriptures, one basically saying that there is no evil at all in God and not even a shadow of turning that way, and the other saying that God creates evil. Instead of considering the possibility of a miss translation, you suggest that evil is really good. To me that's a bunch of religious double talk. Instead I will translate the word evil as calamity and give you an example. Take the example of Joseph and how he was sold into captivity, thrown into prison, and suffered what was calamity to him, yet because of it all he was able to deliver Egypt and his family from starvation. I do believe that in that instance it was ordained by God.

 However how can we tell the difference between God ordained calamity and something brought on my Satan? The answer in in John 10:10. Jesus tells us that the thief, speaking of Satan, comes to steal, kill, and destroy, but he comes to give more abundant life. In the life of Joseph, his calamity did not bring destruction and death but elevated him to a position second only to Pharaoh. God can certainly place us in uncomfortable positions which looks like calamity but the end will be more abundant life. Those things that steal, kill, and destroy however are attacks of the enemy.


----------



## hummerpoo

One of dozens of examples: (Hab. 1:6) "For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans,
That fierce and impetuous people ...


----------



## EverGreen1231

RH Clark said:


> Sorry, but I'll just have to disagree with you. The KJV is not the end all be all of translations and it sometimes takes farther study to see exactly what God's word says, God's word being his original word and not necessarily what the translators decided to use. I do think the KJV is one of our best translations though and use it quite often.
> 
> All that talk of being and creating evil not being the same and not having proper perspective is just a religious cop out to me. It's just man trying to twist anything to fit his decided bible doctrine, so much to say that evil is actually good when looked at from the correct perspective.
> 
> I take the meaning of evil in that scripture to be more along the line of calamity. The word evil you quoted is actually the word "rah". It is used 663 times in the KJV and translated evil 431 of those times. The other times it is not translated as evil but trouble, calamity, adversity, among other things.
> 
> You quoted two scriptures, one basically saying that there is no evil at all in God and not even a shadow of turning that way, and the other saying that God creates evil. Instead of considering the possibility of a miss translation, you suggest that evil is really good. To me that's a bunch of religious double talk. Instead I will translate the word evil as calamity and give you an example. Take the example of Joseph and how he was sold into captivity, thrown into prison, and suffered what was calamity to him, yet because of it all he was able to deliver Egypt and his family from starvation. I do believe that in that instance it was ordained by God.
> 
> However how can we tell the difference between God ordained calamity and something brought on my Satan? The answer in in John 10:10. Jesus tells us that the thief, speaking of Satan, comes to steal, kill, and destroy, but he comes to give more abundant life. In the life of Joseph, his calamity did not bring destruction and death but elevated him to a position second only to Pharaoh. God can certainly place us in uncomfortable positions which looks like calamity but the end will be more abundant life. Those things that steal, kill, and destroy however are attacks of the enemy.



Shall we receive good of God, and shall we not receive evil? - Job

You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. - Joseph

The translators didn't "decide" anything.

Evil is not good, good is not evil. Being and doing are demonstrably different; this is not a scriptural argument but grammatical.

Satan does nothing God does not allow. No evil is present accept what God ordains. 

Calamity is one of many synonymical definitions filed under the broader spectrum of "evil": They mean the same thing, only "calamity" is a more narrowed word used for a more narrowed scenario. To replace "evil" with "narrowed" in my quoted scripture is to try and make it mean what you like for it to mean rather than what it says. It says "evil" because that is exactly what God wanted it to say. If it said "calamity" it would mean something different entirely when examined contextually. To use calamity is to narrow the meaning; while using "evil" allows for anything that you or I would consider bad, obtrusive, unfavorable, cataclysmic, disastrous, unfortunate, or any other "bad" thing you can think of to be filed under its domain. Words mean a lot. God knows this, and ensured that precise vernacular was used.


----------



## RH Clark

EverGreen1231 said:


> Shall we receive good of God, and shall we not receive evil? - Job
> 
> You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. - Joseph
> 
> The translators didn't "decide" anything.
> 
> Evil is not good, good is not evil. Being and doing are demonstrably different; this is not a scriptural argument but grammatical.
> 
> Satan does nothing God does not allow. No evil is present accept what God ordains.
> 
> Calamity is one of many synonymical definitions filed under the broader spectrum of "evil": They mean the same thing, only "calamity" is a more narrowed word used for a more narrowed scenario. To replace "evil" with "narrowed" in my quoted scripture is to try and make it mean what you like for it to mean rather than what it says. It says "evil" because that is exactly what God wanted it to say. If it said "calamity" it would mean something different entirely when examined contextually. To use calamity is to narrow the meaning; while using "evil" allows for anything that you or I would consider bad, obtrusive, unfavorable, cataclysmic, disastrous, unfortunate, or any other "bad" thing you can think of to be filed under its domain. Words mean a lot. God knows this, and ensured that precise vernacular was used.



Then we will just disagree my friend. I would like to comment however on this one quote of yours.
"Satan does nothing God does not allow. No evil is present accept what God ordains." 

I will say that in a manner, yes God does allow evil but I would say that it is only because God allows us a choice.

Does God ordain evil? I would say not in the sense that God plans evil, for that would make God evil himself. How could we say that a being both plans evil and carries it out without being evil? Even if we say that being plans evil but gets a third party to carry it out, then it's essentially the same thing.

I would say that God ordained choice and the result of that choice was evil, not because God intended evil but because man chose wrongly.

I see Satan as the enemy of God, not as God's coconspirator against man. God and Satan are not working together. remember what Jesus said when accused of casting out Satan by Satan, "A house divided against itself cannot stand". God didn't ordain people to be bound by the devil and then have Jesus to set them free. That would be schizophrenic.  Not once did Jesus deny healing to anyone telling them that God wasn't done teaching them a lesson yet. Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, not the works ordained by God.


----------



## EverGreen1231

RH Clark said:


> Then we will just disagree my friend. I would like to comment however on this one quote of yours.
> "Satan does nothing God does not allow. No evil is present accept what God ordains."
> 
> I will say that in a manner, yes God does allow evil but I would say that it is only because God allows us a choice.
> 
> Does God ordain evil? I would say not in the sense that God plans evil, for that would make God evil himself. How could we say that a being both plans evil and carries it out without being evil? Even if we say that being plans evil but gets a third party to carry it out, then it's essentially the same thing.
> 
> I would say that God ordained choice and the result of that choice was evil, not because God intended evil but because man chose wrongly.
> 
> I see Satan as the enemy of God, not as God's coconspirator against man.



Is God taken by surprise? Does he have to "rearrange" things at the last minute so they work out?


----------



## RH Clark

EverGreen1231 said:


> Is God taken by surprise? Does he have to "rearrange" things at the last minute so they work out?



No sir, not at all! I stated previously that Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. God knew the plan all along. In fact in God all time is one. Ephesians tells us that we are right now seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

I already explained my view about that here.
I think that there was certainly a plan from the beginning. Scripture tells us that Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. I do not however think that because God knew exactly what would happen that what happened was his will. We could say that it was God's permissive will but not necessarily his perfect will.

Look at it like this. I have 4 children. It's not my will that any of them sin or that any of them suffer, yet I know that going out into the world, they will sin and they will suffer. Did I bring them into this world to sin or suffer, NO! Was it my plan that they sin and suffer, NO! Yet I certainly knew before their birth that they would both sin and suffer, because I knew that they would have free will, free choice and have to live in a fallen and sinful world. This is the way I see our Father God concerning us.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH

Although I am under no illusions, I would suggest that you give Habakkuk a serious read.  It goes like this:

Egocentric Habakkuk complains that God is not providing for his emotional comfort.
God speaks.
Habakkuk argues very close to what you have said.
God speaks again
The now Theocentric Habakkuk says, No matter how tough things get;
"Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation. 
The LORD God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds' feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places."


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> RH
> 
> Although I am under no illusions, I would suggest that you give Habakkuk a serious read.  It goes like this:
> 
> Egocentric Habakkuk complains that God is not providing for his emotional comfort.
> God speaks.
> Habakkuk argues very close to what you have said.
> God speaks again
> The now Theocentric Habakkuk says, No matter how tough things get;
> "Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation.
> The LORD God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds' feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places."



I'm sorry sir but I see nothing contradictory to my position in Habakkuk. Perhaps if you wish to elaborate or discuss specific scriptures we can come to a better understanding.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> I'm sorry sir but I see nothing contradictory to my position in Habakkuk. Perhaps if you wish to elaborate or discuss specific scriptures we can come to a better understanding.



Thank you for offering, I don't see how I can clarify scripture in this case.


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> Thank you for offering, I don't see how I can clarify scripture in this case.



If you are speaking of the Chaldeans and the destruction they caused, then I would say that God used them for a purpose and he said he raised them up for that purpose. That however is a far cry from saying that God does evil or conspires for evil to happen.

My take on that is that God "raised them up" we could also say allowed them to prosper, knowing all the time what they would do. That just agrees with Matt.5 that says God makes the rain to fall on both the righteous and unrighteous. Even if God knew what they would do before they did it, and used that evil to bring about something good, it does not mean that God caused them to do evil.

It's the same when a someone dies and because of it people get saved. God is always working for the good even in the midst of evil. If God is able in that situation to reach people because their hearts are softened and turned toward him, then he will certainly use that situation for the benefit of those people. That however does not mean that God caused that person to die so that he could reach their relatives or friends.

That probably doesn't agree with you, but that's ok. Be blessed friend.


----------



## bfriendly

grizzlyblake said:


> Earl, you hit the nail on the head. It seems to me that there are a plethora of answers to explain how god is doing the right thing for you at any given point in your life, even if things are really bad.
> 
> TDBone, thanks for the links, I haven't had a chance to watch the videos yet, but I noticed they were to North Point. I used to go to 722 there back in the day and saw Louie Giglio a time or two. I'll check the videos out.
> 
> The question that seems to be lurking in my mind is - why? What point is there to putting people through pain and suffering just to make things better down the road? If god is all powerful, why not just skip the bad and get right to the good?



IF everything was just easy and all things were done with no effort, just goody all the time and no suffering, no price to pay for good things...go get what you want, no cost, all things free and good. Heck, dont even go get it, have it brought to you.............

Without a possibility of Failure, there is no chance for success.................same with Joy. I dont think you can know joy if you have never known any pain..........There has to be a difference


----------



## RH Clark

"IF everything was just easy and all things were done with no effort, just goody all the time and no suffering, no price to pay for good things...go get what you want, no cost, all things free and good. Heck, dont even go get it, have it brought to you............."


I think you just described Heaven.LOL


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> If you are speaking of the Chaldeans and the destruction they caused, then I would say that God used them for a purpose and he said he raised them up for that purpose. That however is a far cry from saying that God does evil or conspires for evil to happen.
> 
> My take on that is that God "raised them up" we could also say allowed them to prosper, knowing all the time what they would do. That just agrees with Matt.5 that says God makes the rain to fall on both the righteous and unrighteous. Even if God knew what they would do before they did it, and used that evil to bring about something good, it does not mean that God caused them to do evil.
> 
> It's the same when a someone dies and because of it people get saved. God is always working for the good even in the midst of evil. If God is able in that situation to reach people because their hearts are softened and turned toward him, then he will certainly use that situation for the benefit of those people. That however does not mean that God caused that person to die so that he could reach their relatives or friends.
> 
> That probably doesn't agree with you, but that's ok. Be blessed friend.



Yes, we understand each other pretty well, but
I must admit that I was surprised that you consider:


> 6 “For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans,
> That fierce and impetuous people …
> 10 …They laugh at every fortress
> And heap up rubble to capture it.
> 11 “Then they will sweep through like the wind and pass on...
> 
> To  which Old Hab replies;
> 
> 12 … You, O LORD, have appointed them to judge;
> And You, O Rock, have established them to correct.
> 
> After God had said he would hold them accountable.


to be comparable to God providing equal rainfall for the righteous and the unrighteous.
But as you said, “that’s ok”.  Prayers your way.


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> Yes, we understand each other pretty well, but
> I must admit that I was surprised that you consider:
> 
> to be comparable to God providing equal rainfall for the righteous and the unrighteous.
> But as you said, “that’s ok”.  Prayers your way.



Thanks my friend! I bet if we could sit down and really hash things out, we would agree on a lot more than not.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> Thanks my friend! I bet if we could sit down and really hash things out, we would agree on a lot more than not.



Could be; God's self revelation aside.


----------



## Artfuldodger

EverGreen1231 said:


> This is so lamentably wrong I'm even sure how to respond.
> 
> God is good. There is found in Him no darkness nor shadow of turning.



Perhaps you are right the more I thought about it. I've read that without good, there could be no evil. I guess that one is true. If we didn't have "good" what would we use as a basis for "evil?"
Without good, how would we know what is evil?

I thought maybe the opposite was also true. That without sin we wouldn't know good.  I think it is but only starting with the Creation of Man or when Satan turned evil. Before that time there was only "good" as you mentioned. Evil was not needed as a basis for good. We didn't need sin to show us a mirror of the future sacrifice offering  that was planned.

In that perfect time before man or Satan turned evil, all was good. Evil did not exist. I wonder what triggered God and his angels minds when evil showed up to let them know what they were seeing for the first time?


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> I woke up this morning knowing I had a big days work ahead of me... that I need to do if only to get rid of financial worry that would draw me away from prayer.
> 
> So I woke up with symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis, Gout and Fibromyalgia. In other words I physically feel like Judas before he died.  I feel poisoned. I ate something yesterday... probably instant oatmeal.... who know...
> 
> So I`m going to drag myself to the grind stone right after this regardless.
> 
> But what is positive about my condition. How many sins would I have committed today if I was feeling `good` and I was up and about to rid all the `bad` in everyone else`s business.
> 
> Have a good day... Paul said he suffered life as a continuation of Jesus suffering on the cross. So suffering must be important, perhaps not in seeing it good or bad, but in something that resets the heart to Divine love, to first love, when the earth our food was not cursed and my Lord not guarded by Cherubims or heaven.



 Gordon, I feel your pain. I've suffered some really bad gout attacks in the past. Luckily allopurinol and staying away from certain foods like shrimp has kept it at bay.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the rest. Scripture supports me , and tradition supports others, I'll take scripture while others cant give into tradition.


----------



## Artfuldodger

EverGreen1231 said:


> Your quoted scripture answers your question.



How true;
4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

That was why I was asking. We read in John that Jesus was always "the" reason and way. If this is true and we know that it is, then it would stand to reason God's omni everything knew and planned "everything" through and for Jesus.

It's not like God made man, waited for him to sin, went "Oh No" and decided to have a Son as a way, truth, and light. The way, truth, and light was and has always been God's Word. Way before man sinned.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bfriendly said:


> Without a possibility of Failure, there is no chance for success.................same with Joy. I dont think you can know joy if you have never known any pain..........There has to be a difference



This was what I was saying when I said "without evil there could be no good." 
There was at a time before Satan and man. Evil wasn't needed to show them good. 
But in the human world we could have good without evil if there never was evil. We would have it, we just wouldn't know what it was because without evil, we couldn't explain it. 
If one lived in a climate without cold, then he might not know what hot is.

There was a time though without evil. But even without it Adam and Eve knew they shouldn't. Confusing?
Wait Satan showed up and he was already evil.  But how did Adam know having never experienced it?


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> How true;
> 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
> 
> That was why I was asking. We read in John that Jesus was always "the" reason and way. If this is true and we know that it is, then it would stand to reason God's omni everything knew and planned "everything" through and for Jesus.
> 
> It's not like God made man, waited for him to sin, went "Oh No" and decided to have a Son as a way, truth, and light. The way, truth, and light was and has always been God's Word. Way before man sinned.



The way I look at it is that God wanted to reproduce so created man in his own image. God always knew his creation would need redemption from sin but that was decided before the world was ever created. God is the ultimate father in that even though his children messed up, he took responsibility for it and fixed it himself.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> This was what I was saying when I said "without evil there could be no good."
> There was at a time before Satan and man. Evil wasn't needed to show them good.
> But in the human world we could have good without evil if there never was evil. We would have it, we just wouldn't know what it was because without evil, we couldn't explain it.
> If one lived in a climate without cold, then he might not know what cold is.
> 
> There was a time though without evil. But even without it Adam and Eve knew they shouldn't. Confusing?



I see it more as without a choice there could be no free will to love. Evil was simply the result of the wrong choice


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> The way I look at it is that God wanted to reproduce so created man in his own image. God always knew his creation would need redemption from sin but that was decided before the world was ever created. God is the ultimate father in that even though his children messed up, he took responsibility for it and fixed it himself.



So you see choices even with God's predestination? This has always been my problem. I read scripture that says God pretty much causes everything even to the point of hardening hearts, electing certain people, conspiring with Satan(Job), blinding the Jews for the benefit of Gentiles, God knowing when every sparrow falls, Jesus being the plan before creation, and most of all; all of the Old Testament shadows God predestined just to show us New Testament prophesy.

Scripture pretty much tells me predestination is true. It tells me God is in total control. I mean if even one sparrow falls and God knows it, how can that sparrow fall by getting cancer without God being in control?

OK, so I read that part of scripture and I get it yet about an hour ago I decided to take a shower. I thought it was my choice. I can't see where God cares when I shower. So what part of life does God control, what part does Satan control, and what part do I control?
Then I wonder if things just happen by nature or randomness such as mutations and adaptations. Plants and animals just randomly mutating and bacteria and viruses just randomly attacking individuals.
Does God really give you a cold and me diarrhea from a virus? Do earthquakes randomly happen by pressure or directly from God? Did God steer Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans or did God's nature randomly steer it in that direction?

Now if God gave us dominion then he certainly gave us free will. If God told us to pray for changes then God can certainly  change his original plan. Say I've got a virus caused by evil or I drink too much caused by evil's influence, can prayer cause God to intervene and change my destiny? If so then how was God able to use his foreknowledge and not know that this change was inevitable?

If God can look ahead and know who will accept Jesus and who won't, why do we have a choice? It's not like we can change what God has already seen/written.  After all he does operate that way, he knew I would need a Savior and the Word was with God from the beginning for that purpose. He knew if he would call and my answer. That kinda limits my choice/free will.

If God knew that and when the Word would become human, when that Word would die, even blinding the Jews to make it happen, when the Word will return, etc. I'm pretty sure he knows my destiny too. If he knows my destiny, how can I change it? How could I not have taken a shower when I did? 
Maybe my free will is just conceived by my as free will and I really don't have a choice. Maybe God does control the evolution of viruses and who gets them. 

Yet we are without excuse and have dominion. Either God is in total control or I have dominion/responsibility. If I am without excuse then I have choice. If Gentiles worldwide are without excuse then they must have knowledge of the Gospel in order to have choice/responsibility.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> The way I look at it is that God wanted to reproduce so created man in his own image. God always knew his creation would need redemption from sin but that was decided before the world was ever created. God is the ultimate father in that even though his children messed up, he took responsibility for it and fixed it himself.



God wanted to reproduce?
One day we will see Jesus as he is. We will become like him.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> I see it more as without a choice there could be no free will to love. Evil was simply the result of the wrong choice



Wouldn't there have to be evil in order for man to choose love? Wouldn't there have to be hate to choose love? How can we choose if there is no opposite? 
You gotta have more than one to have a choice.

How can I choose Jesus as a savior if there was never anything for him to save me from? If Jesus has always been the plan then the concept of evil/sin has also had to be a part of the plan. 
That plan is God's as explained in 1 John 1:1-5. Thus why I mention 1 John 1:1 earlier.  It's way deeper than just explaining the Trinity. It explains the "plan."

We can argue foreknowledge or predestination all day but we can't argue the "plan."
My dilemma, if you will, is that with either foreknowledge or predestination, I don't see choice.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> The way I look at it is that God wanted to reproduce so created man in his own image. God always knew his creation would need redemption from sin but that was decided before the world was ever created. God is the ultimate father in that even though his children messed up, he took responsibility for it and fixed it himself.



But only for some of his creation. Unless all created in his image aren't his children.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> So you see choices even with God's predestination? This has always been my problem. I read scripture that says God pretty much causes everything even to the point of hardening hearts, electing certain people, conspiring with Satan(Job), blinding the Jews for the benefit of Gentiles, God knowing when every sparrow falls, Jesus being the plan before creation, and most of all; all of the Old Testament shadows God predestined just to show us New Testament prophesy.
> 
> Scripture pretty much tells me predestination is true. It tells me God is in total control. I mean if even one sparrow falls and God knows it, how can that sparrow fall by getting cancer without God being in control?
> 
> OK, so I read that part of scripture and I get it yet about an hour ago I decided to take a shower. I thought it was my choice. I can't see where God cares when I shower. So what part of life does God control, what part does Satan control, and what part do I control?
> Then I wonder if things just happen by nature or randomness such as mutations and adaptations. Plants and animals just randomly mutating and bacteria and viruses just randomly attacking individuals.
> Does God really give you a cold and me diarrhea from a virus? Do earthquakes randomly happen by pressure or directly from God? Did God steer Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans or did God's nature randomly steer it in that direction?
> 
> Now if God gave us dominion then he certainly gave us free will. If God told us to pray for changes then God can certainly  change his original plan. Say I've got a virus caused by evil or I drink too much caused by evil's influence, can prayer cause God to intervene and change my destiny? If so then how was God able to use his foreknowledge and not know that this change was inevitable?
> 
> If God can look ahead and know who will accept Jesus and who won't, why do we have a choice? It's not like we can change what God has already seen/written.  After all he does operate that way, he knew I would need a Savior and the Word was with God from the beginning for that purpose. He knew if he would call and my answer. That kinda limits my choice/free will.
> 
> If God knew that and when the Word would become human, when that Word would die, even blinding the Jews to make it happen, when the Word will return, etc. I'm pretty sure he knows my destiny too. If he knows my destiny, how can I change it? How could I not have taken a shower when I did?
> Maybe my free will is just conceived by my as free will and I really don't have a choice. Maybe God does control the evolution of viruses and who gets them.
> 
> Yet we are without excuse and have dominion. Either God is in total control or I have dominion/responsibility. If I am without excuse then I have choice. If Gentiles worldwide are without excuse then they must have knowledge of the Gospel in order to have choice/responsibility.



First off I do not believe in predestination in the sense that God has decided who will be saved and who will not, as if God picks this one for Heaven and then just because he can picks another for CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored. Perhaps this subject should be a topic for discussion in itself but I will make an attempt to briefly explain.

First off I believe strongly in self will. If there is no self will and God decides everything that will happen, then how can a man be held responsible for anything he does. Along this line of thinking the problem of Judas use to always bother me. I mean how could Judas be held responsible for betraying the Lord when Isaiah prophesied he would do it long before Judas was ever born. I mean it seemed like Judas never had a choice in the matter.

This Judas problem bothered me to the point that I began to pray about it and ask God how it could be. I earnestly sought God over this issue. I'm going to tell you what God revealed to me and what scriptures he gave me in the hope that it will help you as it did me. I do not however want anyone to build a doctrine on this but only to study the scriptures for themselves and prayerfully seek God as I did. I will outline it here but I will not argue this revelation. It's up to each person to decide if it's from God or not.

God began to explain to me his relationship with time. God does not live as we do on a linear line with one day following another. God lives outside of time and all time is as one to him. Think of the scriptures that tell us Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the earth. Jesus is the alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. God says he declares the end from the beginning. Jesus would make statements like, "Before Abraham was, I am."

The Lord began to explain to me that what Isaiah saw and prophesied was actually Judas making his choice. Isaiah saw outside of time by the Spirit of God and just saw Judas's choice as he made it. He saw a future event taking place as it happened. The same thing happened to John, and he wrote down that vision as the book of Revelation.

What does that mean for us? In our lives, the way we live them, we still have a choice, God just already knows what that choice will be. Those he foreknew, he also predestined, now takes on a slightly different meaning. It will actually make your brain reel if you give it too much thought. In God all time is one, and it always has been.

Now, I'm not asking you or anyone else to accept that explanation. I'm simply telling you what I honestly think God revealed to me.


PS,
 Sorry about the censored. I didn't know I couldn't say the place of punishment that starts with the letter H.


----------



## Artfuldodger

We usually say He11 or he!! to get around the censor.

All of man is Gods' creation. I wonder if that makes all of us his children? 
Under the "election" program God elects only his elect to include even the inhabitants of foreign lands and the children of pagans.
Gentiles world wide. 

Under the "choice" program God created a lot of men knowing full well they would never seek him. God went so far as to even give man the free will to make a choice in choosing him.
Knowing full well that many wouldn't.
Even creating some men inhabited in foreign lands. Even creating some the children of Hindus, Jews, and Muslims. He knew that most children would keep the religion of their parents.

Even though I personally believe in free will and choice, I don't see one plan as being more fair than the other. 
God choosing does seem like more foreign Gentiles will receive salvation.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> We usually say He11 or he!! to get around the censor.
> 
> All of man is Gods' creation. I wonder if that makes all of us his children?
> Under the "election" program God elects only his elect to include even the inhabitants of foreign lands and the children of pagans.
> Gentiles world wide.
> 
> Under the "choice" program God created a lot of men knowing full well they would never seek him. God went so far as to even give man the free will to make a choice in choosing him.
> Knowing full well that many wouldn't.
> Even creating some men inhabited in foreign lands. Even creating some the children of Hindus, Jews, and Muslims. He knew that most children would keep the religion of their parents.
> 
> Even though I personally believe in free will and choice, I don't see one plan as being more fair than the other.
> God choosing does seem like more foreign Gentiles will receive salvation.



When thinking of people in other lands, I always think of these verses. I may not know exactly how, but I will trust the judge of all the earth to do right.

Romans 2:13-15New International Version (NIV)

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> First off I do not believe in predestination in the sense that God has decided who will be saved and who will not, as if God picks this one for Heaven and then just because he can picks another for CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored. Perhaps this subject should be a topic for discussion in itself but I will make an attempt to briefly explain.
> 
> First off I believe strongly in self will. If there is no self will and God decides everything that will happen, then how can a man be held responsible for anything he does. Along this line of thinking the problem of Judas use to always bother me. I mean how could Judas be held responsible for betraying the Lord when Isaiah prophesied he would do it long before Judas was ever born. I mean it seemed like Judas never had a choice in the matter.
> 
> This Judas problem bothered me to the point that I began to pray about it and ask God how it could be. I earnestly sought God over this issue. I'm going to tell you what God revealed to me and what scriptures he gave me in the hope that it will help you as it did me. I do not however want anyone to build a doctrine on this but only to study the scriptures for themselves and prayerfully seek God as I did. I will outline it here but I will not argue this revelation. It's up to each person to decide if it's from God or not.
> 
> God began to explain to me his relationship with time. God does not live as we do on a linear line with one day following another. God lives outside of time and all time is as one to him. Think of the scriptures that tell us Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the earth. Jesus is the alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. God says he declares the end from the beginning. Jesus would make statements like, "Before Abraham was, I am."
> 
> The Lord began to explain to me that what Isaiah saw and prophesied was actually Judas making his choice. Isaiah saw outside of time by the Spirit of God and just saw Judas's choice as he made it. He saw a future event taking place as it happened. The same thing happened to John, and he wrote down that vision as the book of Revelation.
> 
> What does that mean for us? In our lives, the way we live them, we still have a choice, God just already knows what that choice will be. Those he foreknew, he also predestined, now takes on a slightly different meaning. It will actually make your brain reel if you give it too much thought. In God all time is one, and it always has been.
> 
> Now, I'm not asking you or anyone else to accept that explanation. I'm simply telling you what I honestly think God revealed to me.
> 
> 
> PS,
> Sorry about the censored. I didn't know I couldn't say the place of punishment that starts with the letter H.



RH,except for the first paragraph,I think you and I believe alike so far.
Regarding the first paragraph,specifically the election and limited atonement of God's people,how do you believe Rom.9 fits your belief(specifically vs.16)?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 2:13-15New International Version (NIV)

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 

This appears to offer salvation to Gentiles who follow the Law. I thought salvation was given only to individuals who believe Jesus died for their sins? That Jesus is the only way and who superseded salvation by following the Law.
I didn't think none of us were under the Law anymore.

There is still the problem of the children of Hindus actively seeking God or following his Law. They will just actively seek the god of their parents and host nation.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> RH,except for the first paragraph,I think you and I believe alike so far.
> Regarding the first paragraph,specifically the election and limited atonement of God's people,how do you believe Rom.9 fits your belief(specifically vs.16)?



First let me thank you for your thoughtful and polite response. Most of what I will post here comes from Greek word studies by Kenneth S Wuest who was a Greek scholar and who consulted and studied under the best Greek scholars early in this century. Most of what I will relate below was published in 1955.

I will give a translation according to Wuest from the Greek of verses 14-16 of Romans 9
What shall we say then? There is no unrighteousness with God, is there? Away with the thought. For to Moses He says; I will have mercy upon whoever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whoever I will have compassion. Therefore then, mercy is not of the one who desires nor even runs (works), but of the one who is merciful. God.

The former verb emphasizes the sense of human wretchedness in it's active manifestation; the latter, the inward feeling expressing itself in sighs and tears. Have mercy therefore contemplates, not merely the sentiment itself, but the determination of those who should be its objects. The words were spoken to Moses in connection with his prayer for a general forgiveness of the people.

The relative pronoun is accompied by an, a particle used with the subjunctive mode, used here with the relative pronoun to make the latter mean "whoever" emphasizing indefiniteness. The idea is not " I will have mercy on whoever I desire or will to have mercy.", It is, " I will have mercy on anyone, whoever he is, that I will show mercy to in the future."


I will now edit to speak of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Sometimes my screen can crash and I loose all I have pecked out, so I am choosing to finish by editing lest I loose all. Below are more words by Wuest, and Vincent.
The word "hardeneth" is skleruno. "to make hard, to harden," metaphorically, " to render obstinate, stubborn." Vincent says of the word: "Three words are used in the Hebrew to describe the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. The one which occurs most often, properly means to be strong, and therefore represents the hardness of foolhardiness, infatuated insensibility to danger. See Exodus 14. The word used in its positive sense, hardens, not merely permits to become hard. In Exodus the hardening is represented as self produced. (8:15, 32 9:34) and as produced by God ( 4:21, 7:3, 9:12, 10:20, 27, 11:10). Paul here chooses the later representation.

 We are not to understand in the latter instance that God arbitrarily and directly forced upon Pharaoh an obstinate and stubborn resistance to Himself. Evil cannot be laid at the door of God. God not only does not solicit a sinner to do evil( James 1:13), but He also does not cause man to do evil. When man does wrong, that wrong comes from his own totally depraved nature (James 1:14). Therefore when Pharaoh acted in a stubborn rebellion to God, all of the rebellion came as a result of his own depravity, not any directly from God. When God is said to harden Pharaoh's heart, it is that He be demanding the release of Israel, confronted him with an issue he did not wish to meet. It is like the case of a naughty boy whose violent temper is incited to greater effort by the demand of his mother that he behave himself. Paul says, "Whom He will, He hardeneth." "will" is "thelo," to be resolved, to determine, to purpose." Vincent says that the word is used here in the sense of a decree. God's resolve to use Pharaoh as an example of his sovereignty issued in a decree that he be so used. Pharaoh was incorrigible, and God simply used him as He found him to demonstrate His power to the human race.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Let's continue in Romans 9:6-8
6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; 8just as it is written, "GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY."…


----------



## Artfuldodger

If it was left up to Pharaoh or Israel to harden themselves, wouldn't this change the course of events if they didn't follow through and harden themselves?
I guess we could say God foresaw that they would harden themselves but Romans 9:8 says God gave them a spirit of stupor.


----------



## tell sackett

Artfuldodger said:


> We usually say He11 or he!! to get around the censor.
> 
> All of man is Gods' creation. I wonder if that makes all of us his children?
> Under the "election" program God elects only his elect to include even the inhabitants of foreign lands and the children of pagans.
> Gentiles world wide.
> 
> Under the "choice" program God created a lot of men knowing full well they would never seek him. God went so far as to even give man the free will to make a choice in choosing him.
> Knowing full well that many wouldn't.
> Even creating some men inhabited in foreign lands. Even creating some the children of Hindus, Jews, and Muslims. He knew that most children would keep the religion of their parents.
> 
> Even though I personally believe in free will and choice, I don't see one plan as being more fair than the other.
> God choosing does seem like more foreign Gentiles will receive salvation.



No.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> Let's continue in Romans 9:6-8
> 6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; 8just as it is written, "GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY."…



You are actually asking about Romans 11 and not 9.
Without writing a dissertation, I will only say here that the Greek implies that Israel rejected God and his word. The more it did so, the harder it's heart became. In addition to this hardening that they did by themselves, there was God's judicial action of hardening as a just judgment upon its sin of rejection. There is the same indefiniteness here as in " vessels fitted to destruction", from 9:22. The hardening in this case is always regarded as a punishment for sin.  It is a confirming in an obduracy which was originally not of God, but their own. The idea is they first would not, and then in God's reaction to their sin, they could not.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> First let me thank you for your thoughtful and polite response. Most of what I will post here comes from Greek word studies by Kenneth S Wuest who was a Greek scholar and who consulted and studied under the best Greek scholars early in this century. Most of what I will relate below was published in 1955.
> 
> I will give a translation according to Wuest from the Greek of verses 14-16 of Romans 9
> What shall we say then? There is no unrighteousness with God, is there? Away with the thought. For to Moses He says; I will have mercy upon whoever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whoever I will have compassion. Therefore then, mercy is not of the one who desires nor even runs (works), but of the one who is merciful. God.
> 
> The former verb emphasizes the sense of human wretchedness in it's active manifestation; the latter, the inward feeling expressing itself in sighs and tears. Have mercy therefore contemplates, not merely the sentiment itself, but the determination of those who should be its objects. The words were spoken to Moses in connection with his prayer for a general forgiveness of the people.
> 
> The relative pronoun is accompied by an, a particle used with the subjunctive mode, used here with the relative pronoun to make the latter mean "whoever" emphasizing indefiniteness. The idea is not " I will have mercy on whoever I desire or will to have mercy.", It is, " I will have mercy on anyone, whoever he is, that I will show mercy to in the future."
> 
> 
> I will now edit to speak of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Sometimes my screen can crash and I loose all I have pecked out, so I am choosing to finish by editing lest I loose all. Below are more words by Wuest, and Vincent.
> The word "hardeneth" is skleruno. "to make hard, to harden," metaphorically, " to render obstinate, stubborn." Vincent says of the word: "Three words are used in the Hebrew to describe the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. The one which occurs most often, properly means to be strong, and therefore represents the hardness of foolhardiness, infatuated insensibility to danger. See Exodus 14. The word used in its positive sense, hardens, not merely permits to become hard. In Exodus the hardening is represented as self produced. (8:15, 32 9:34) and as produced by God ( 4:21, 7:3, 9:12, 10:20, 27, 11:10). Paul here chooses the later representation.
> 
> We are not to understand in the latter instance that God arbitrarily and directly forced upon Pharaoh an obstinate and stubborn resistance to Himself. Evil cannot be laid at the door of God. God not only does not solicit a sinner to do evil( James 1:13), but He also does not cause man to do evil. When man does wrong, that wrong comes from his own totally depraved nature (James 1:14). Therefore when Pharaoh acted in a stubborn rebellion to God, all of the rebellion came as a result of his own depravity, not any directly from God. When God is said to harden Pharaoh's heart, it is that He be demanding the release of Israel, confronted him with an issue he did not wish to meet. It is like the case of a naughty boy whose violent temper is incited to greater effort by the demand of his mother that he behave himself. Paul says, "Whom He will, He hardeneth." "will" is "thelo," to be resolved, to determine, to purpose." Vincent says that the word is used here in the sense of a decree. God's resolve to use Pharaoh as an example of his sovereignty issued in a decree that he be so used. Pharaoh was incorrigible, and God simply used him as He found him to demonstrate His power to the human race.



Its taking me a little while to sort through this,sorry.(Im a little slow).
But I have one more question.Did Esau ever have a chance to be saved?(Rom.9:11)


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> Its taking me a little while to sort through this,sorry.(Im a little slow).
> But I have one more question.Did Esau ever have a chance to be saved?(Rom.9:11)



These will be my words as I interpret from various word studies.
It is important to note in these passages that they definitely declare the sovereignty of God. This is illustrated in the choosing of Jacob over the elder Esau. This was done as a sovereign act of God not based on any kind of election or merit.

Now to specifically answer your question, I think yes,  Esau had just as much chance as anyone to be saved. The Greek is very clear here. The word hate is "miseo", "to hate."  However, when it is used in contrast to "love" here, it does not retain it's literal meaning of hate, but of a lesser degree of love. The translation could be " Jacob I loved but Esau, I loved less.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Correction appreciated, it was Romans 11.
Romans 11:11
Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

It still sounds like a purpose to me, not a consequence.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

grizzlyblake said:


> I would like to hear some straight forward answers to this one.
> 
> Let's assume that god is both omnipotent and omniscient. Let's also assume that his love is unconditional. (Ideas pulled from the Bible)
> 
> Now, we are all aware that the world is full of horrible things, with innocent people being killed daily, children suffering, families starving, stabbings, shootings, rapes, the list goes on and on. Based on the arguments I've seen on here that Christianity is the majority belief in the world, let's say that 60% of the people involved in these horrible events are Christians. (Just a guess)
> 
> My question is: Why does god not prevent these things from happening to people? If his love is unconditional it should cover everyone, but if he only loves his worshipers the 60% should be protected at the least.
> 
> Here are the choices to explain this:
> 
> A) God is omniscient and omnipotent, but is not caring enough to step in and prevent these things from happening to his followers.
> 
> B) God does care enough to protect his followers, but is not omniscient or omnipotent, and therefore not a god after all.
> 
> 
> Before anyone starts screaming that I'm just pot-stirring I'll bear my feelings here and say that this issue is the number one reason that I no longer believe in god. Therefore this is a very serious question that I have and as of yet I have not found an answer that actually addresses the two options.




I think you left out a valid explanation.

C) Being neither omnipotent, omniscient, nor omnipresent we cannot truely judge whether God is allowing bad things to happen to good people.  It very well be the case that what you perceive as "bad" is actually "good" .  Just an example.  4 year old killed in wreck, drive by shooting, etc.    That child is immediately in paradise.  So is that unfair to the child?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 11:25-27

25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." 27"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."…

"A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26and so all Israel will be saved."

Still sounds like a plan instead of a consequence.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> These will be my words as I interpret from various word studies.
> It is important to note in these passages that they definitely declare the sovereignty of God. This is illustrated in the choosing of Jacob over the elder Esau. This was done as a sovereign act of God not based on any kind of election or merit.
> 
> Now to specifically answer your question, I think yes,  Esau had just as much chance as anyone to be saved. The Greek is very clear here. The word hate is "miseo", "to hate."  However, when it is used in contrast to "love" here, it does not retain it's literal meaning of hate, but of a lesser degree of love. The translation could be " Jacob I loved but Esau, I loved less.



I don't understand how you can believe it's not based on election when it says in verse 11 "...that the purpose of God according to election might stand..."


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 11:25-27
> 
> 25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." 27"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."…
> 
> "A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26and so all Israel will be saved."
> 
> Still sounds like a plan instead of a consequence.



Hopefully this will help. I thought I basically said this earlier but I will try to speak more simply.

Israel's hardening was two fold, partially because they themselves rejected the Gospel, then as a result of that rejection, as punishment, God hardened them farther. All that is contained within the Greek.

 I do think God used their punishment of hardening to his purpose. I do not think ,and it would be foolish to do so, that God sent his son to his chosen people to show them the way to salvation, and then zapped them so that they could not receive it.

The situation reminds me of what happened when God brought Israel out of Egypt and told them to go and possess the land he had given them. They sent spies into the land and the spies came back saying how the people there were giants and there was no way they could take the land from those powerful people. Apparently they had completely forgotten that God told them to take the land. They had no trust of God whatsoever. God got angry and basically told them then that none of that generation would get to posses the land except Joshua and Caleb who had argued to do what God had said and take the land. Did God bring the people there to wander for 40 years, NO, but that was their punishment for not obeying or trusting God.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> I don't understand how you can believe it's not based on election when it says in verse 11 "...that the purpose of God according to election might stand..."



I may have misspoken there in using the word election. Maybe I don't know exactly how to say it but what I mean is that it was not according to an "election" of man as in birthright since Jacob was not the first born. It was not a choice of man. Neither was it by merit as in righteous behavior that Jacob was chosen. It was certainly " election" as in God doing the choosing by his sovereign right and that right alone.

I am sorry, I should not have used the word election there since it only confused the issue. I hope my explanation of what I actually meant helps to straighten it out.


----------



## Artfuldodger

It was a temporary partial zapping until the fullness of the Gentiles came in or comes in.

I can somewhat see your justifications. At least you have some. Even though I believe in free will, I have trouble justifying my belief.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> It was a temporary partial zapping until the fullness of the Gentiles came in or comes in.
> 
> I can somewhat see your justifications. At least you have some. Even though I believe in free will, I have trouble justifying my belief.



I suppose you can say that as long as you remember that the zapping was only in response to the sin of their preexisting  rejection. It's as if God said, "Ok, you won't accept my son, for your punishment I'll make it even harder for you to accept him!"


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 11:32-36
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. 33 Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!
34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" 35 Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

Amen!


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 11:32-36
> For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. 33 Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!
> 34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" 35 Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
> 
> Amen!



I don't guess I know what you are getting at. What I see is that God doesn't owe anything to anyone, from the lines you highlighted.


----------



## gordon 2

This is perhaps to easy, but Art have you ever considered this:

Genesis 3:17-19King James Version (KJV)

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

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

When I read this I get, (by reading it in another language), that the earth, ( dirt) was cursed because of Adam. 

Why was it cursed because of Adam, what was new with Adam?

Adam was now seeing his world from the "tree of good and evil".  And because Adam was changed in this way, now he has to toil for his food, and " in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;..."

This was not the case when Adam took his food with another mindset... or from the tree of life.

----------

Here's my point, and perhaps it is juvenile, but I strongly suspect that God does not make the Chaldeans or anyone else to do evil. What he did was to let Adam his free will to play the good and evil game, which is the origin of evil in the world. Adam is the cause of hardened hearts... on the earth which Adam has cursed because of his outlool, but it is God will to leave man his freewill.  

Within this freewill there is the possibility to return to the tree of life origins-- but on God's terms...or time line.  Divide this time line how best you see fit, attribute dispensations, covenants, etc... And I bet God's terms will not be dispensations or covenants...


Don't go to the bank with this... but hope it might help...


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> I may have misspoken there in using the word election. Maybe I don't know exactly how to say it but what I mean is that it was not according to an "election" of man as in birthright since Jacob was not the first born. It was not a choice of man. Neither was it by merit as in righteous behavior that Jacob was chosen. It was certainly " election" as in God doing the choosing by his sovereign right and that right alone.
> 
> I am sorry, I should not have used the word election there since it only confused the issue. I hope my explanation of what I actually meant helps to straighten it out.



Hey it happens to me all the time.I never am able to put into words what Im thinking as well as Id like.

I still dont understand your position on election.Are you saying God actually loves everybody,just some less than others?
Would that mean there will be people in he11 that God loved but didn't save?Please correct me if I misunderstood.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gordon 2 said:


> This is perhaps to easy, but Art have you ever considered this:
> 
> Genesis 3:17-19King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
> 
> 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
> 
> 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
> 
> --------------
> 
> When I read this I get, (by reading it in another language), that the earth, ( dirt) was cursed because of Adam.
> 
> Why was it cursed because of Adam, what was new with Adam?
> 
> Adam was now seeing his world from the "tree of good and evil".  And because Adam was changed in this way, now he has to toil for his food, and " in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;..."
> 
> This was not the case when Adam took his food with another mindset... or from the tree of life.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Here's my point, and perhaps it is juvenile, but I strongly suspect that God does not make the Chaldeans or anyone else to do evil. What he did was to let Adam his free will to play the good and evil game, which is the origin of evil in the world. Adam is the cause of hardened hearts... on the earth which Adam has cursed because of his outlool, but it is God will to leave man his freewill.
> 
> Within this freewill there is the possibility to return to the tree of life origins-- but on God's terms...or time line.  Divide this time line how best you see fit, attribute dispensations, covenants, etc... And I bet God's terms will not be dispensations or covenants...
> 
> 
> Don't go to the bank with this... but hope it might help...



God placed the destiny of every man, plant, and animal in the hands of a single man. Bringing terrible plant and animal mutations through this one man's choice.  Bringing spiritual death to all of God's offspring. What was he thinking?
I guess that's the price we pay for having dominion and free will. We are without excuse. Stupid Adam, what was he thinking? I wish God would have kept Satan away from the Earth. Then Eve would have never been tempted. 


                                                                                                                                                                                     It's almost like God planned Adam to fail and set him up. Like he planned it so he could use Adam as a mirror or type of the second Adam. When does God use types and mirrors for prophesy? After the individuals used harden themselves? If it was God's plan to use Adam as a mirror for the second Adam, did he do this only after the first Adam sinned? Only after Pharaoh sinned? Only after Israel sinned? 
Oh and the Ark. Only after man failed. Then God said, "Hey, this will make a good type or mirror of salvation." Is that how God plans and reveals prophesy? 

Is life a game for God, watching what we do and intervening to make everything play out to his ending? If God started the game of life And God ends the game of life, then I guess he does control some of the stuff in between.

Sorta like this;

Proverbs 16:9 
In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD establishes their steps.

Limited free will or perhaps the allusion of free will.

How was Adam who knew no evil able to do evil even before he ate from the tree of good & evil? Satan was able to do the same thing. Perform evil in Heaven. A place with no evil. Evil thoughts in a perfect world/place/Heaven.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> I don't guess I know what you are getting at. What I see is that God doesn't owe anything to anyone, from the lines you highlighted.



I guess I was trying to find a way of expressing what many of us come to say in these long discussions;  "His ways are not our ways."
Maybe we could use that for every discussion, every thought, every question, every wonder.

I presented this in Romans 11:33;
33 Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!

I'm not sure what Romans 11:32 means. Probably that we have free will;
32For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Could it be something about God's offspring? Temporarily hardening hearts? Having mercy on all of his offspring? Fullness of Gentiles? All of Israel? Adam's sin? All? All have sinned? All are justified by Jesus?


----------



## Artfuldodger

In relation to foreign Gentiles gaining salvation by following the law;

Romans 3:19-20
Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses, and to show that the entire world is guilty before God.
20For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are.

God has used the Law to harden all of our hearts. We are all without excuse.
I hope God has some revision for the children of the Hindus. It's not their fault they were born Hindu. They shouldn't receive eternal death for the sins of their parents.

In this manner I hope election is true. I hope God hasn't burdened me with the salvation of the world.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think I may have found the answer;

Romans 3:21
But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago.22We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Now how about those Hindu children?


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 11:25-27
> 
> 25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." 27"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."…
> 
> "A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26and so all Israel will be saved."
> 
> Still sounds like a plan instead of a consequence.



Israelites were still coming in to the New Covenant, but it was only the remnant, until all the Gentiles that were elected entered in then all Israel..the true lost sheep entered and all Israel was saved. 
 Then the end came. Election was for those pre-70 ad Christians only.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> I think I may have found the answer;
> 
> Romans 3:21
> But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago.22We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
> 
> Now how about those Hindu children?



What about the Hindu?



"We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ."

"And Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." " These are the generations of Noah:..."


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Israelites were still coming in to the New Covenant, but it was only the remnant, until all the Gentiles that were elected entered in then all Israel..the true lost sheep entered and all Israel was saved.
> Then the end came. Election was for those pre-70 ad Christians only.



Did predestination also stop at 70AD? Do you see God's prophesy ending at 70AD? Meaning God created, gave us the Old Testament to show us sin, gave us types and shadows, prophesies of things to come, and finally every thing in God's plan happening exactly as God wanted it to and at the exact times God wanted it to ending at 70AD?
It's kinda hard to deny all of that predestination leading up to and 70AD itself. Maybe God's plan of earthly predestination ended at that point and now every thing is in our control.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gordon 2 said:


> What about the Hindu?
> 
> "We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ."
> 
> "And Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." " These are the generations of Noah:..."



God wanted offspring. We are made in his image. Adam sinned and brought spiritual death to every single one of 
God's offspring. Suddenly not everyone was a child of God anymore.
The law was brought in to show us that none are without excuse. That we all needed salvation through Jesus.

God still went ahead with creating man knowing full well that some of his creation would never again be his children thus receiving everlasting spiritual death, separation from God.

He had to know that without his spirit guiding each individual that some of his offspring would venture to far away parts of the earth only to forget their knowledge of him. Well maybe retain enough to know him by his creation but not enough to gain salvation. Why because salvation comes from knowing and believing Jesus died for your sins.
God had to know this would happen when he went ahead with his original plan. He had to know that some children would be born of Hindu parents or pagan parents such as Native Americans before Christianity arrived.

What does scripture tell us of God's plan for electing some of these Gentiles and former offspring of the Heavenly Father? How can they choose God through Jesus if they don't know of Jesus? 
We are all without excuse. Blame Adam if you will or we could just say sin was to show us we are all without excuse. Sin's purpose is to keep people from having excuses, and to show that the entire world is guilty before God.

So if sin made the entire world guilty and gives no one an excuse, then God must have a plan to give every person an opportunity to hear the Gospel. Sin hardened everyone's heart, that was it's purpose.

Romans 10:14
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
1717So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.1818But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "THEIR VOICE HAS GONE OUT INTO ALL THE EARTH, AND THEIR WORDS TO THE ENDS OF THE WORLD."

Has the gospel reached the ends of the earth even before every Gentile died? Has every child of the Hindu heard the gospel before they died? 
Has the fullness of the Gentile came in with the stupor of the Jews or was this just back in the day as Hobbs believed? 

Romans 11:26
and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

Has this happened as Hobbs believes? If so then from 70AD what is God's plan for the children of the Hindu? It would have been the same plan for the now dead Native Americans from the time before the gospel reached them.

I still don't see where the free will plan gives everyone a choice at salvation any better than the election plan.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> God wanted offspring. We are made in his image. Adam sinned and brought spiritual death to every single one of
> God's offspring. Suddenly not everyone was a child of God anymore.
> The law was brought in to show us that none are without excuse. That we all needed salvation through Jesus.
> 
> God still went ahead with creating man knowing full well that some of his creation would never again be his children thus receiving everlasting spiritual death, separation from God.
> 
> He had to know that without his spirit guiding each individual that some of his offspring would venture to far away parts of the earth only to forget their knowledge of him. Well maybe retain enough to know him by his creation but not enough to gain salvation. Why because salvation comes from knowing and believing Jesus died for your sins.
> God had to know this would happen when he went ahead with his original plan. He had to know that some children would be born of Hindu parents or pagan parents such as Native Americans before Christianity arrived.
> 
> What does scripture tell us of God's plan for electing some of these Gentiles and former offspring of the Heavenly Father? How can they choose God through Jesus if they don't know of Jesus?
> We are all without excuse. Blame Adam if you will or we could just say sin was to show us we are all without excuse. Sin's purpose is to keep people from having excuses, and to show that the entire world is guilty before God.
> 
> So if sin made the entire world guilty and gives no one an excuse, then God must have a plan to give every person an opportunity to hear the Gospel. Sin hardened everyone's heart, that was it's purpose.
> 
> Romans 10:14
> How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
> 1717So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.1818But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "THEIR VOICE HAS GONE OUT INTO ALL THE EARTH, AND THEIR WORDS TO THE ENDS OF THE WORLD."
> 
> Has the gospel reached the ends of the earth even before every Gentile died? Has every child of the Hindu heard the gospel before they died?
> Has the fullness of the Gentile came in with the stupor of the Jews or was this just back in the day as Hobbs believed?
> 
> Romans 11:26
> and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
> 
> Has this happened as Hobbs believes? If so then from 70AD what is God's plan for the children of the Hindu? It would have been the same plan for the now dead Native Americans from the time before the gospel reached them.
> 
> I still don't see where the free will plan gives everyone a choice at salvation any better than the election plan.



Ah. Yes...  I get your point. ... your butting heads with Hobbs. Amen.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> Hey it happens to me all the time.I never am able to put into words what Im thinking as well as Id like.
> 
> I still dont understand your position on election.Are you saying God actually loves everybody,just some less than others?
> Would that mean there will be people in he11 that God loved but didn't save?Please correct me if I misunderstood.



My view on predestination is that God has predestined what he will do for those who are saved, not at all that God chooses one to be saved and chooses one not to be saved. God knowing the future can see the choices a man makes and so to us it looks like God chooses one over the other, when it can actually be God reacting now to a choice that will be in the future for that person. Sorry for my convoluted way of trying to explain.

Yes, I believe God loves everyone, even those who will go to he11. The scripture says " For God so loved the world..." It also says  "While we were yet dead in our sins ,God demonstrated his love toward us..."  I think the scriptures are clear that God loves us despite our sins, and that there is not a single person God does not love, for doesn't the scripture also say that God would that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of Christ? That alone shoots down the notion that God picks and chooses who will be saved, even though I'm sure he always knows.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Adam and sin

Was Adam created with the nature to not sin or was he created with the nature to sin?

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
4 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Considering that God already had a plan as John 1 tells us, does it really matter how or why Adam sinned? God's plan/Word was already in place. 
The darkness will never comprehend God's plan.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gordon 2 said:


> Ah. Yes...  I get your point. ... your butting heads with Hobbs. Amen.



Oh no, not at all. I'm not butting heads with anyone, just looking for answers. How will God elect some of the children of Hindu parents and how did he elect some of the children of Native American parents in the years before they heard the Gospel?
If we are all without excuse because of sin, then how will "all" be given a chance/choice at gaining the knowledge of Jesus needed to gain salvation?

Hobbs was mentioned only as a reference to how God reached Gentiles before or after 70AD and the blinding of the Jews until the fullness of the Gentiles came in.

The election view is God places his Holy Spirit in the elected child of the Hindu. The free will view is. Well I really don't know.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> My view on predestination is that God has predestined what he will do for those who are saved, not at all that God chooses one to be saved and chooses one not to be saved. God knowing the future can see the choices a man makes and so to us it looks like God chooses one over the other, when it can actually be God reacting now to a choice that will be in the future for that person. Sorry for my convoluted way of trying to explain.
> 
> Yes, I believe God loves everyone, even those who will go to he11. The scripture says " For God so loved the world..." It also says  "While we were yet dead in our sins ,God demonstrated his love toward us..."  I think the scriptures are clear that God loves us despite our sins, and that there is not a single person God does not love, for doesn't the scripture also say that God would that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of Christ? That alone shoots down the notion that God picks and chooses who will be saved, even though I'm sure he always knows.



Wouldn't that make God a respecter of man if he used his foreknowledge to elect the one's he knew would choose him? 

Tonight i'm trying to decide if I should wear my blue shirt or my red shirt. I choose my blue shirt. If God looked ahead and saw that I would choose my blue shirt, where is my free will to do choose any differently? I had to choose my blue shirt. My choice was predestined and only assumed to be free. 
If Everything is based on God operating out of time then this time that he foresaw has already happen in his eyes. We can't do anything about it. It's the same thing as predestination. 
It matters not why Adam sinned, the plan for our salvation was already in place by the Word.
It matters not why the Jews were hardened. Whether God foresaw or ordained, the results were the same. Neither changed God's plan. Neither changed prophesy. Neither changed the mystery revealed by Paul.


----------



## Israel

God is the ONLY ONE who keeps a bad thing from happening.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Did predestination also stop at 70AD? Do you see God's prophesy ending at 70AD? Meaning God created, gave us the Old Testament to show us sin, gave us types and shadows, prophesies of things to come, and finally every thing in God's plan happening exactly as God wanted it to and at the exact times God wanted it to ending at 70AD?
> It's kinda hard to deny all of that predestination leading up to and 70AD itself. Maybe God's plan of earthly predestination ended at that point and now every thing is in our control.



He chose a bride for His Son, that's all election and predestination is about. The marriage was consumated when He came in 70ad, now The Son and the Bride ( resurrected Israel) ...Draw people in to salvation..." Come, take of the water of life FREELY" .

Those that heed to the beckon are born spiritually as children of God in the everlasting Kingdom of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords!.. Now that's some Good News!


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> He chose a bride for His Son, that's all election and predestination is about. The marriage was consumated when He came in 70ad, now The Son and the Bride ( resurrected Israel) ...Draw people in to salvation..." Come, take of the water of life FREELY" .
> 
> Those that heed to the beckon are born spiritually as children of God in the everlasting Kingdom of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords!.. Now that's some Good News!



All of that sounds good but it won't work.I will tell you why with two verses.

2 Tim.2:19 says God knoweth them that are His.

Matt.7:23 says He will say in that day,depart from Me for I never knew you.

Those of you who believe Jesus died for everyone to make a "possibility "for everyone to be saved,explain how these two verses work together to support that claim.


----------



## gordon 2

I shall go this way.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


Ah! Ha! So the Hebrews had first to go through Jesus to come to the Father! Just like the Gentiles! Ah! Ha! For all, Moses was an Egyptian and he was raised an Egyptian and as an exile, he was ministered to under the same priesthood as Christians are ministered to. Ah! .... Ha!

Ah! Ha!  Could it be some way similar the Hindus? The Indians?

So this points that Jesus was prior to the Hebrews and came into the Hebrews and is after the Hebrews. Does it?

So the Hindus have Jesus, but maybe they know Him not for who He is? And that is as the Father of the Hebrews and the Lord of the Christians? and that our Lord was with their fathers?

Then how could they have Him, yet not know it is Him? Are they a people of faith, of hope?

http://www.ancient.eu/Ashoka/

There are 24 million Christians in India. Before Thomas they were something else, yet they knew Jesus when Thomas ministered to them with the cross...

On a side note: Once all of Egypte was Christian. Will Egypte be one day peopled with the sons of these Christians, and return to Christ? ( Remember the Prodigal Son?) Are the Egyptians today captives as were the ancient Hebrew slaves to Egypte...said set free? The fathers of present day Egypte all knew our priesthood. Ah! Ha!


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> All of that sounds good but it won't work.I will tell you why with two verses.
> 
> 2 Tim.2:19 says God knoweth them that are His.
> 
> Matt.7:23 says He will say in that day,depart from Me for I never knew you.
> 
> Those of you who believe Jesus died for everyone to make a "possibility "for everyone to be saved,explain how these two verses work together to support that claim.



I will get it into those verses later, but for the time being. Was the old Covenant not one that made a " possibility " for anyone to enter into Covenant with God?


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> Oh no, not at all. I'm not butting heads with anyone, just looking for answers. How will God elect some of the children of Hindu parents and how did he elect some of the children of Native American parents in the years before they heard the Gospel?
> If we are all without excuse because of sin, then how will "all" be given a chance/choice at gaining the knowledge of Jesus needed to gain salvation?
> 
> Hobbs was mentioned only as a reference to how God reached Gentiles before or after 70AD and the blinding of the Jews until the fullness of the Gentiles came in.
> 
> The election view is God places his Holy Spirit in the elected child of the Hindu. The free will view is. Well I really don't know.



The free will view is " When I'll have time, I'll make time." And "I have time to make time."

Maybe... some people are grieved that they have pushed away God, where  how once they walked with Him or their fathers did and not unlike God who repented that he had ever created man, yet He grieved and found grace in his eyes for Noah, they grieve also and turn to God. In this they are images of each other? Perhaps.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> All of that sounds good but it won't work.I will tell you why with two verses.
> 
> 2 Tim.2:19 says God knoweth them that are His.
> 
> Matt.7:23 says He will say in that day,depart from Me for I never knew you..



These verses do not cause conflict with what I said. God is a spirit, He resides over a present spiritual Kingdom. The Hebrew Nicodemus was physically born into the physical kingdom of God . Jesus told him, he must be born again...born of the spirit to enter into the kingdom.
 When we are spiritually born by answering the drawing call or beckon of the spirit and the Bride , we are born into God's family as a child of God. And we enter into those gates never to wonder out of them, covered by the blood, forgiven....yet on the outside is the murderers, the immoral, the wicked, etc.   Which we were once, but we were washed.
The Good News is Jesus is Lord and salvation has come for Whosoever Will!

Predestination is not good news...it's a false teaching and makes a mockery of the Gospel. It changes the words of Revelation from Whosoever Will to if you got the luck of the draw.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Hindus were just used as an example. Let's use the indigenous people of Brazil in the year 100AD.

How did the The Son and the Bride ( resurrected Israel) draw the elect from that group?


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Hindus were just used as an example. Let's use the indigenous people of Brazil in the year 100AD.
> 
> How did the The Son and the Bride ( resurrected Israel) draw the elect from that group?



We aren't told of a way. How are we to know things of God that are not in the scriptures?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> These verses do not cause conflict with what I said. God is a spirit, He resides over a present spiritual Kingdom. The Hebrew Nicodemus was physically born into the physical kingdom of God . Jesus told him, he must be born again...born of the spirit to enter into the kingdom.
> When we are spiritually born by answering the drawing call or beckon of the spirit and the Bride , we are born into God's family as a child of God. And we enter into those gates never to wonder out of them, covered by the blood, forgiven....yet on the outside is the murderers, the immoral, the wicked, etc.   Which we were once, but we were washed.
> The Good News is Jesus is Lord and salvation has come for Whosoever Will!
> 
> Predestination is not good news...it's a false teaching and makes a mockery of the Gospel. It changes the words of Revelation from Whosoever Will to if you got the luck of the draw.



So to keep it simple,are you saying that there will be some that perish that Jesus loved and died for?

Very simple yes or no question.


----------



## Artfuldodger

OK, by scripture I'm a Low Calvinists, believing in limited free will. I'm still concerned with how God will provide salvation to "all." 

I do wish scripture told us what one must do to be saved. Maybe I should just be concerned with myself. I'm sure there were some Native Americans that thought the same thing when the Europeans showed up.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> So to keep it simple,are you saying that there will be some that perish that Jesus loved and died for?
> 
> Very simple yes or no question.



No, quiet simply because if they don't enter in, and become children, He won't know them.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> OK, by scripture I'm a Low Calvinists, believing in limited free will. I'm still concerned with how God will provide salvation to "all."
> 
> I do wish scripture told us what one must do to be saved. Maybe I should just be concerned with myself. I'm sure there were some Native Americans that thought the same thing when the Europeans showed up.



Are you referring to ( all Israel shall be saved) ?


----------



## RH Clark

My position is that Jesus died for everyone ever born or that ever will be born. His sacrifice applies to anyone who will accept it. It's an act of faith on the part of the individual of trust in God alone for their salvation. It's not based on any certain words that need be spoken, nor on any righteous acts of the individual, but in faith alone.

We all know that we are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus. Even the OT saints were saved by faith even though the perfect sacrifice was still to come. They didn't even have to know the name Jesus. I believe that peoples of other lands are saved by that same faith when they honestly seek for God. I believe there is a yearning in every man for God, and when they honestly seek him they will find him.

That is not at all saying that there is the true God in every religion. Much religion is only man trying to control man in the name of God. No religion or relationship with a group of believers will ever save man, including the ones who teach Jesus. It takes a personal relationship with God and faith in him alone for your salvation.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> OK, by scripture I'm a Low Calvinists, believing in limited free will. I'm still concerned with how God will provide salvation to "all."
> 
> I do wish scripture told us what one must do to be saved. Maybe I should just be concerned with myself. I'm sure there were some Native Americans that thought the same thing when the Europeans showed up.



A good study of what your talking about here concerning the First Nations, is a study of Geronimo. 


 Quote [Geronimo was a prominent leader from the Bedonkohe band of the Chiricahua Apache tribe. From 1850 to 1886 Geronimo joined with members of three other Chiricahua Apache bands—the Chihenne, the Chokonen ... Wikipedia ] End quote Wiki.

You think special forces individuals were something? They join the army at what 18-19 and older. Well, the Apache male and Geronimo joined the day he was born--- His way of life made the French Foreign Legion look like hippies.

And yet Geronimo converted to the faith... He was ministered to by missionaries and even Geronimo saw the light!  He trived on hate, as if hate was appointed him by the creator. He is now our brother in love!???? Geronimo believed... and the way he thought and lived changed.

So if God provided the possibility that Geronimo could be "saved", then he provides it for all.


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> My position is that Jesus died for everyone ever born or that ever will be born. His sacrifice applies to anyone who will accept it. It's an act of faith on the part of the individual of trust in God alone for their salvation. It's not based on any certain words that need be spoken, nor on any righteous acts of the individual, but in faith alone.
> 
> We all know that we are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus. Even the OT saints were saved by faith even though the perfect sacrifice was still to come. They didn't even have to know the name Jesus. I believe that peoples of other lands are saved by that same faith when they honestly seek for God. I believe there is a yearning in every man for God, and when they honestly seek him they will find him.
> 
> That is not at all saying that there is the true God in every religion. Much religion is only man trying to control man in the name of God. No religion or relationship with a group of believers will ever save man, including the ones who teach Jesus. It takes a personal relationship with God and faith in him alone for your salvation.



I believe you're really close. The OT saints were saved by obedience to the law...held over in an abode for the dead ( Hades) awaiting the Christ and His sacrifice to conquer death and the grave, that they may have true salvation.. IE. Eternal life.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> No, quiet simply because if they don't enter in, and become children, He won't know them.



So,according to this ⬆⬆,salvation is in man's hands and depends on man to "enter in" to obtain it?

What about it being "not of works lest any man should boast"?
Or, "No man cometh to me unless the Father draw him".

Do you believe Esau had a chance to be saved? Scripture says "being not yet born,and having done neither good nor evil,that the purpose of God,according to election might stand.For it is written Jacob have I loved,but Esau have I hated."

Or do you believe as RH Clark,that God just loved Esau less than Jacob?

What about the vessels that are created for destruction?


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> A good study of what your talking about here concerning the First Nations, is a study of Geronimo.
> 
> 
> Quote [Geronimo was a prominent leader from the Bedonkohe band of the Chiricahua Apache tribe. From 1850 to 1886 Geronimo joined with members of three other Chiricahua Apache bands—the Chihenne, the Chokonen ... Wikipedia ] End quote Wiki.
> 
> You think special forces individuals were something? They join the army at what 18-19 and older. Well, the Apache male and Geronimo joined the day he was born--- His way of life made the French Foreign Legion look like hippies.
> 
> And yet Geronimo converted to the faith... He was ministered to by missionaries and even Geronimo saw the light!  He trived on hate, as if hate was appointed him by the creator. He is now our brother in love!???? Geronimo believed... and the way he thought and lived changed.
> 
> So if God provided the possibility that Geronimo could be "saved", then he provides it for all.




Geronimo!!!


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> I do wish scripture told us what one must do to be saved.


Nothing! The Spirit gives life!


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> My position is that Jesus died for everyone ever born or that ever will be born.



This simply can not be true because if it were true,every person ever born would go to heaven.There would be none in he11.
That's not scriptural.

Jesus said none of His sheep will be lost and none can pluck them out of the Father's hand.

It can't be both ways.sorry.


----------



## gordon 2

gemcgrew said:


> Nothing! The Spirit gives life!



The squeaky wheel no get's the grease? I'm thinking the High Calvinist did no complaining, but the Low Calvinist was a constant nag. The Low Calvinist got a Yuge massion in heaven and High Calvinist got a broom closet next to the elevators. 

The two are elect, yet one did not cry out... being content that God push the wheelbarrow and he snug in and he gets to sit on the dustbane while the winner got the loungers at the pools...

Maybe....



Luke 18:1-8King James Version (KJV)

18 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:

3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.

4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;

5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.

6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.

7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?


----------



## gordon 2

welderguy said:


> This simply can not be true because if it were true,every person ever born would go to heaven.There would be none in he11.
> That's not scriptural.
> 
> Jesus said none of His sheep will be lost and none can pluck them out of the Father's hand.
> 
> It can't be both ways.sorry.



This depends on how we read this perhaps:


Quote RH[My position is that Jesus died for everyone ever born or that ever will be born.} end quote.

You seem to read it that all mankind will be saved. But I can believe that Jesus died for everyone ever born or that ever will be born, but _some will chose_ to be goats... and some will be ignorant of Jeusus' redeeming work... And maybe some by nature have died or die as Christ died, as we died to live in love, as Abraham did, in order that we live a new life. Having not know the father, perhaps they have always known the son, yet not yet his sacrifice... though they sacrifice self supernaturally...

Maybe...


----------



## gemcgrew

gordon 2 said:


> The squeaky wheel no get's the grease?


Does the wheel have any life of it's own... to initiate anything?


----------



## gordon 2

gemcgrew said:


> Does the wheel have any life of it's own... to initiate anything?



Yes. Just come here and listen to my "wheel" a couple of days... Sometimes I would bet it's possessed.


----------



## RH Clark

gordon 2 said:


> This depends on how we read this perhaps:
> 
> 
> Quote RH[My position is that Jesus died for everyone ever born or that ever will be born.} end quote.
> 
> You seem to read it that all mankind will be saved. But I can believe that Jesus died for everyone ever born or that ever will be born, but _some will chose_ to be goats... and some will be ignorant of Jeusus' redeeming work... And maybe some by nature have died or die as Christ died, as we died to live in love, as Abraham did, in order that we live a new life. Having not know the father, perhaps they have always known the son, yet not yet his sacrifice... though they sacrifice self supernaturally...
> 
> Maybe...



No sir, sadly everyone will not be saved. I just mean that the price has been paid for everyone that will accept it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

When I said I wonder how God provides salvation to all, I meant the offering of salvation to all. Not that I think all will accept.
So what about "all" before the missionaries came to Geronimo?

Does scripture tell us or not? If all are without excuse then one would think all would have salvation offered. 

Can the Holy Spirit really just show up an enter someone who has never heard of Jesus? If so, I really like that plan better.

I've heard it said one must have free will in order to "accept" Jesus. If one doesn't have free will he can never choose. Maybe the Holy Spirit entered the Gentiles of the world, told them of Jesus, and then the individuals used their free will to accept.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If God and Jesus are the same as in Oneness and not Trinitarian, and one knows God by his creation, and follows the Law instinctively, do they have salvation?
Such as the Native Americans before the Europeans came?
I'm still trying to get those suckers saved!


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> This simply can not be true because if it were true,every person ever born would go to heaven.There would be none in he11.
> That's not scriptural.
> 
> Jesus said none of His sheep will be lost and none can pluck them out of the Father's hand.
> 
> It can't be both ways.sorry.



No. Jesus has paid the price of redemption for everyone, but everyone will not accept it. No one is a sheep until they are born again. Everyone needs to be born again to enter into Heaven. They are born again when they by faith trust in God alone for salvation.

If some have been pre chosen by God then scriptures like Gal.3:22 and Rom. 11:32 would not be true because there would be some that God had pre gifted righteousness to. That is not the case at all. God has concluded all under sin so that all can be saved, or to phrase it differently anyone under sin can be made righteous who will accept the sacrifice of Jesus.

God had to conclude all under sin, otherwise the only way to enter heaven would be for him to pick who gets to go or to allow men to earn Heaven by good works. Men could never be good enough to earn Heaven and neither will God choose.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> If God and Jesus are the same as in Oneness and not Trinitarian, and one knows God by his creation, and follows the Law instinctively, do they have salvation?
> Such as the Native Americans before the Europeans came?
> I'm still trying to get those suckers saved!



I can guarantee you that if you knew what God knows, you would say that God has judged rightly. God is full of love and compassion and not willing that any should perish. We need not worry that everyone didn't have a fair chance. All we need do is make sure we are doing what God has called us to do and influencing those God has connected us to.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> If God and Jesus are the same as in Oneness and not Trinitarian, and one knows God by his creation, and follows the Law instinctively, do they have salvation?
> Such as the Native Americans before the Europeans came?
> I'm still trying to get those suckers saved!



In your mind you mean. Right. 

Well Enock did not die, he walked with God I think after the fall and when Jesus to Calvary is far off. So who else was like Enock, that we will never read about... We know of Elijah... and...

Brother... the Lord is beautiful...to no limit...


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> So,according to this ⬆⬆,salvation is in man's hands and depends on man to "enter in" to obtain it?
> 
> What about it being "not of works lest any man should boast"?
> Or, "No man cometh to me unless the Father draw him".
> 
> Do you believe Esau had a chance to be saved? Scripture says "being not yet born,and having done neither good nor evil,that the purpose of God,according to election might stand.For it is written Jacob have I loved,but Esau have I hated."
> 
> Or do you believe as RH Clark,that God just loved Esau less than Jacob?
> 
> What about the vessels that are created for destruction?




Yes.

It is not by works to answer His call.

The story of Esau and Jacob. What if Esau hadn't sold his birthright?


----------



## RH Clark

Let me ask this question to anyone who believes that God just arbitrarily chooses who will be saved and who will go to he11.

Why preach the gospel at all, since it can be no benefit to those God has chosen for He11? Why would scriptures so strongly admonish us to try to reach the lost with the gospel?


----------



## Artfuldodger

If it takes reaching the lost with the gospel, then we sure have been tasked with what appears to be an impossible feat. Think about how many souls have died never hearing the gospel. 

Another seemingly impossible feat is convincing the children of Hindu parents to abandon the religion of their parents even if we do reach them. 

I'd rather let God do that. He can save more people than I can.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> If it takes reaching the lost with the gospel, then we sure have been tasked with what appears to be an impossible feat. Think about how many souls have died never hearing the gospel.
> 
> Another seemingly impossible feat is convincing the children of Hindu parents to abandon the religion of their parents even if we do reach them.
> 
> I'd rather let God do that. He can save more people than I can.



Matthew 22:36-40King James Version (KJV)

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

-----------

Now I will take Jesus at his word. The first and second great commandments are older than dirt.  Even older than Moses.

Next question? Let me guess:  How does this apply to the Hindu? Hum...

Off topic:

Never was a choir to preach so much to itself and on Good Friday at that.... 

Art, you know it goes without saying that it is God who saves....


----------



## Artfuldodger

The way it applies to the Hindu is this; if we don't reach him and teach him about the Good News, he can't be saved.
We failed the Great Commission commandment and another soul is denied everlasting life.
The fate of that dead Hindu was on our hands/dominion.

If we really love our Hindu neighbor as thyself, we'd leave his salvation up to God as you said "it is God who saves."


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> If it takes reaching the lost with the gospel, then we sure have been tasked with what appears to be an impossible feat. Think about how many souls have died never hearing the gospel.
> 
> Another seemingly impossible feat is convincing the children of Hindu parents to abandon the religion of their parents even if we do reach them.
> 
> I'd rather let God do that. He can save more people than I can.



Thank God He has made a way, because we all come short of the glory of God, even the folks that believe they won the lottery of eternal life before they were born.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> Let me ask this question to anyone who believes that God just arbitrarily chooses who will be saved and who will go to he11.


I am not sure as to what you have in mind with "arbitrarily". I will ignore this until you clarify.


RH Clark said:


> Why preach the gospel at all, since it can be no benefit to those God has chosen for He11? Why would scriptures so strongly admonish us to try to reach the lost with the gospel?


I never preach the gospel under a delusion that it benefits the reprobate. It is bad news to the reprobate, a stench of death. It is preached for the benefit of the elect, a fragrance of life.


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> Thank God He has made a way, because we all come short of the glory of God, even the folks that believe they won the lottery of eternal life before they were born.


Your pejorative does not help you. God controls man's lottery as well.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If everything is based on God operating out of time then this time that he foresaw has already happened in his eyes. We can't do anything about it. It's the same thing as predestination in that we can't change what God has already saw. 

Either way it's a done deal, already seen by God, already recorded. Free will, predestination, election; doesn't matter, the results are the same. The book has been written.

If I were to make a change, God foresaw it. If he was to change to meet my change, he already has. He knew what my choice would be and what his action to my choice would be. 

Either way it's a done deal.


----------



## hummerpoo

gemcgrew said:


> Your pejorative does not help you. God controls man's lottery as well.



I've met a lot of people who said they decided to be saved, but I've never met anyone who said they were saved by a game of change.  Have you met that lucky person we hear about?

Just checkin'.


----------



## gemcgrew

hummerpoo said:


> I've met a lot of people who said they decided to be saved, but I've never met anyone who said they were saved by a game of change.  Have you met that lucky person we hear about?
> 
> Just checkin'.


No, but I have just as much hope for them as I do for those with the superior decision making skills.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> If everything is based on God operating out of time then this time that he foresaw has already happened in his eyes. We can't do anything about it. It's the same thing as predestination in that we can't change what God has already saw.
> 
> Either way it's a done deal, already seen by God, already recorded. Free will, predestination, election; doesn't matter, the results are the same. The book has been written.
> 
> If I were to make a change, God foresaw it. If he was to change to meet my change, he already has. He knew what my choice would be and what his action to my choice would be.
> 
> Either way it's a done deal.



No, It's still your choice to make. For you it hasn't yet been written. You don't live outside time. It doesn't matter if God knows your choice before you make it, it's still your choice to make and if you don't make it then it won't be made, and so God will see you in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredation rather than salvation. As far as you are concerned it hasn't yet been set in stone.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> I am not sure as to what you have in mind with "arbitrarily". I will ignore this until you clarify.
> 
> I never preach the gospel under a delusion that it benefits the reprobate. It is bad news to the reprobate, a stench of death. It is preached for the benefit of the elect, a fragrance of life.



So is it your position that no one is saved by the preaching of the gospel?
 Paul says in Romans 10:14 " How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? How shall they hear without a preacher?"


By arbitrarily I mean God just chooses not based on anything of the man who is chosen. I completely agree that it is God alone who saves and salvation is not by any works, but I do believe salvation comes by the faith in God for salvation by the one who is to be saved.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> No, It's still your choice to make. For you it hasn't yet been written. You don't live outside time. It doesn't matter if God knows your choice before you make it, it's still your choice to make and if you don't make it then it won't be made, and so God will see you in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredation rather than salvation. As far as you are concerned it hasn't yet been set in stone.



If God already knows my choice I'm pretty sure I can't change it.


----------



## welderguy

:





hobbs27 said:


> Yes.
> 
> It is not by works to answer His call.
> 
> The story of Esau and Jacob. What if Esau hadn't sold his birthright?



The selling of the birthright had nothing to do with Esau's lack of salvation.Rom.9:11 specifically points out that it had nothing to do with doing good or evil,but that it had everything to do with election.

The selling of the birthright only revealed evidence of Esau's nature,which was reprobate.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> So is it your position that no one is saved by the preaching of the gospel?
> Paul says in Romans 10:14 " How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? How shall they hear without a preacher?"
> 
> 
> By arbitrarily I mean God just chooses not based on anything of the man who is chosen. I completely agree that it is God alone who saves and salvation is not by any works, but I do believe salvation comes by the faith in God for salvation by the one who is to be saved.



That just sounds like a terrible plan for gaining salvation. A poor soul depending on "man." I'm afraid we've let a lot of poor souls down if their fate was in our hands. We didn't even make it to America until 1492!

Maybe God foresaw that we wouldn't or couldn't reach them and he sent his Holy Spirit in our place.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> :
> 
> The selling of the birthright had nothing to do with Esau's lack of salvation.Rom.9:11 specifically points out that it had nothing to do with doing good or evil,but that it had everything to do with election.
> 
> The selling of the birthright only revealed evidence of Esau's nature,which was reprobate.



I"m sure the argument will be that God foresaw Esau.(sorry, I had to use that in a sentence.)
Anyhow, God could have looked ahead and saw that Esau would sell his birthright. God based his plan on the action of man.(Esau)


----------



## Artfuldodger

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad...

Well there goes that idea.

Genesis 25:23
The LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger."

Maybe Jacob and Esau just represented the two nations and it's somehow language representing the actual nations and not the twins? Possibly? Maybe?
You know like that "Israel"  "Church" type thing.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Excerps from Paul's letter to the Romans; 
                                                                                                                                                                                     "so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls"

"Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." 14What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!"

"For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."

Well so much fro that idea, they were real twins. Paul understood that individuals would question God's justice and compassion on this matter and put a stop to it.
It didn't have anything to do with works, good, evil, justice, compassion, logic, etc. of the two twins or God

Just the fate of God's right hand.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> So is it your position that no one is saved by the preaching of the gospel?


That is not my position.


RH Clark said:


> By arbitrarily I mean God just chooses not based on anything of the man who is chosen.


God's choice is by his will and not based upon any consideration in the individual, whether good or evil.


RH Clark said:


> I completely agree that it is God alone who saves and salvation is not by any works, but I do believe salvation comes by the faith in God for salvation by the one who is to be saved.


Amen


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> :
> 
> The selling of the birthright had nothing to do with Esau's lack of salvation.Rom.9:11 specifically points out that it had nothing to do with doing good or evil,but that it had everything to do with election.
> 
> The selling of the birthright only revealed evidence of Esau's nature,which was reprobate.



Romans 9 has nothing to do with esaus salvation but is about Israel's rejection of God. Esau is used as a story but Esau never was saved ( received eternal life) until Hades was emptied.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> If God already knows my choice I'm pretty sure I can't change it.



I still don't think you have your brain wrapped around the concept yet. For you, it's not set or decided until you make the choice.

Think about it this way, suppose we watched last years Super bowl. You and I already know what happens but does that mean that we made it happen the way it happened? Does our watching it change or influence any of the plays or decisions the players made?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> God foresaw Esau.(sorry, I had to use that in a sentence.)



 I don't know if forgiveness is required for that one or not, but if it is, I'm sure a special dispensation is in order.  Nobody could resist such a temptation, and God has promised that he will equip you to handle the consequences.  I'm lovin' it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> I still don't think you have your brain wrapped around the concept yet. For you, it's not set or decided until you make the choice.
> 
> Think about it this way, suppose we watched last years Super bowl. You and I already know what happens but does that mean that we made it happen the way it happened? Does our watching it change or influence any of the plays or decisions the players made?



I don't think that is a good analogy as we can't pray to change last years Super bowl.  If we were watching last year's Super bowl and a player got hurt, could we pray for God to go back in time and heal the player?

I'm not saying we didn't make it(our destiny) happen a certain way. We quite well could have, but like last years Super bowl, it's already been recorded. The players them selves can't even change it.

A better analogy would be next year's Super bowl representing our life. If the players could watch that game, could they change the plays and the outcome?
Considering that that future game has already been recorded. God only having the knowledge to record it.
He's already watched it "and" recorded it. 

If he has used omniscience to do this, there is no difference in the future than him using his omnipotence.
Either way we can't change our future even with free will.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> I don't know if forgiveness is required for that one or not, but if it is, I'm sure a special dispensation is in order.  Nobody could resist such a temptation, and God has promised that he will equip you to handle the consequences.  I'm lovin' it.



Hopefully, but while I have you on the phone, I have a question about this bit of knowledge from God;

"I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."

If that's the way God operates and I'm sure it is, even to the point of electing individuals who have never heard the gospel, 
why did he develop such an elaborate plan of Adam, sin, Old Testament shadows, types, purpose of sin to show that no one has an excuse, Ark representing salvation, choosing Israel, blinding Israel to graft in the Gentiles, sending the Word who was slain at the foundation of the world, names already in the Book of Life, Jesus dying on a cross to replace the Law, the resurrection, ascension, and future return,the Church becoming Israel, and on and on to have mercy on whom he will have mercy and compassion on whom he will have compassion?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Hopefully, but while I have you on the phone, I have a question about this bit of knowledge from God;
> 
> "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."
> 
> If that's the way God operates and I'm sure it is, even to the point of electing individuals who have never heard the gospel,
> why did he develop such an elaborate plan of Adam, sin, Old Testament shadows, types, purpose of sin to show that no one has an excuse, Ark representing salvation, choosing Israel, blinding Israel to graft in the Gentiles, sending the Word who was slain at the foundation of the world, names already in the Book of Life, Jesus dying on a cross to replace the Law, the resurrection, ascension, and future return,the Church becoming Israel, and on and on to have mercy on whom he will have mercy and compassion on whom he will have compassion?



Only for the purpose of getting it out of the way; "Jesus dying on the cross to replace the Law"; when you write it "the Law" you make your statement inaccurate — You need to check with Paul on that one, he says otherwise .

A big part of the answer to your question is revealed in scripture and can be oversimplified and paraphrased as "you couldn't handle it all at once", that's why it's all there up front, but in the shadows.  If you look at some of the stuff posted on here, it will make you think that the "revelation" was too fast, but we can trust that God knows what he is doing.  We are a little off topic so, that's it.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

My ex-wife is French, she was raised Catholic in a tiny village like you see on postcards. When she was about six or seven years old, a girl her age she knew from a neighboring village was brutally raped and killed.  

She asked her priest why God let that happen, he said it was God's will. She left the church that day and has never been back. As she said, if God's willing to let a six year old girl be raped to death, you can have Him.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Only for the purpose of getting it out of the way; "Jesus dying on the cross to replace the Law"; when you write it "the Law" you make your statement inaccurate — You need to check with Paul on that one, he says otherwise .
> 
> A big part of the answer to your question is revealed in scripture and can be oversimplified and paraphrased as "you couldn't handle it all at once", that's why it's all there up front, but in the shadows.  If you look at some of the stuff posted on here, it will make you think that the "revelation" was too fast, but we can trust that God knows what he is doing.  We are a little off topic so, that's it.



Off topic happened a long time ago but I'm content with your answer. At least to delve into scripture more, thanks.

Head over to my new thread and tell me why you think Jesus died for my sins? Well at least for your sins.

If it wasn't for the Law/sins, I'm eager to know. Especially since God said "WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY" he still requires a sacrifice and a blood one at that.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Dr. Strangelove said:


> My ex-wife is French, she was raised Catholic in a tiny village like you see on postcards. When she was about six or seven years old, a girl her age she knew from a neighboring village was brutally raped and killed.
> 
> She asked her priest why God let that happen, he said it was God's will. She left the church that day and has never been back. As she said, if God's willing to let a six year old girl be raped to death, you can have Him.



I can see her point, even if God didn't cause her rape and death he didn't stop it either. Maybe it had already happened by free will/choice and recorded and there was no way to change the little girl's fate.
If God can't change, then he may be unable to do anything about it by the actions of his own foreknowledge.

God's omniscience might have precedence over his omnipotence.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Artfuldodger said:


> I can see her point, even if God didn't cause her rape and death he didn't stop it either. Maybe it had already happened by free will/choice and recorded and there was no way to change the little girl's fate.
> If God can't change, then he may be unable to do anything about it by the actions of his own foreknowledge.
> 
> God's omniscience might have precedence over his omnipotence.



Her point, even as a little girl was:

If it was "pre-ordained", and God's plan, well then, surely  I can't trust him in my life.

If it was "free-will", I'm not interested in following a God who allows that kind of thing to happen.

Essentially, her priest told her that the God that she was  taught to worship and who she thought would protect her allowed her friend to be raped and killed, as his divine will.

It wasn't "Oh this was a terrible tragedy",  it was "This is God's will". In her case, she decided that if that was God's will, he could go pound sand. 

I don't blame her at all.


----------



## gemcgrew

Dr. Strangelove said:


> My ex-wife is French, she was raised Catholic in a tiny village like you see on postcards. When she was about six or seven years old, a girl her age she knew from a neighboring village was brutally raped and killed.
> 
> She asked her priest why God let that happen, he said it was God's will. She left the church that day and has never been back. As she said, if God's willing to let a six year old girl be raped to death, you can have Him.





Dr. Strangelove said:


> Her point, even as a little girl was:
> 
> If it was "pre-ordained", and God's plan, well then, surely  I can't trust him in my life.
> 
> If it was "free-will", I'm not interested in following a God who allows that kind of thing to happen.
> 
> Essentially, her priest told her that the God that she was  taught to worship and who she thought would protect her allowed her friend to be raped and killed, as his divine will.


Why is it that I can read your story and praise God, while others read it and their hearts are hardened?

God's will is why.


----------



## RH Clark

Dr. Strangelove said:


> My ex-wife is French, she was raised Catholic in a tiny village like you see on postcards. When she was about six or seven years old, a girl her age she knew from a neighboring village was brutally raped and killed.
> 
> She asked her priest why God let that happen, he said it was God's will. She left the church that day and has never been back. As she said, if God's willing to let a six year old girl be raped to death, you can have Him.



Some people have very strange ideas that are only born from man's doctrine. I'm sorry your wife had that experience.

The truth is that God has given the earth over to man and because it is now in man's control God's will isn't always done. Didn't Jesus even tell us to pray that God's will be done on earth as it is in Heaven? It wasn't God's will that the girl be raped to death. The only thing involved was the free will choice of an evil man.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> Why is it that I can read your story and praise God, while others read it and their hearts are hardened?
> 
> God's will is why.



That sounds a bit like the folks who praise God for giving them the wonderful gift of cancer, which is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## welderguy

I find it strange how people are so quick to want to blame God for man's horrible depravity.Remember the first time it happened?"The woman WHOM THOU GAVEST to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

Man has no problem with the concept of Jesus' suffering,and how they believe they can benefit from it,but the very moment suffering comes upon their own life,then they deem it as an evil thing done by God.(evil defined as sinful)

It takes the Holy Spirit and faith to see past the temporal consequences of man's depravity onto the eternal ones of a longsuffering God.

for anyone interested heres a good sermon on this very subject: www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10113214556


----------



## Israel

RH Clark said:


> That sounds a bit like the folks who praise God for giving them the wonderful gift of cancer, which is absolutely ridiculous.



Is it? 
Or, to you, are they?
Which is it?
Who is it?
What is absolutely ridiculous?
What is more ridiculous than the cross? And ridiculed it has been.
What makes one man in the beholding say "this makes no sense"...and yet to another...it comes to be seen as the perfection of all sense? 
Will a man receive only what makes sense to him...and there find himself deceived in it all?
Or, will a man be forced, compelled, brought to the place of receiving what makes no sense to him at all, and thereby be brought to see life?


I submit, in respect, the fundamental question in all men, of all men, to all men...remains..."why am I?" and in the why am I, is the resident..."then why am I...me?"

Because God is God. And to fight that...is to be in opposition to oneself.

And that is where all grief lay...in the man taking his battle against himself...into the parking lot...and there making wounded all others.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Why is it that I can read your story and praise God, while others read it and their hearts are hardened?
> 
> God's will is why.



Amen, Gem.


----------



## gordon 2

ambush80 said:


> Amen, Gem.



Amen ambush. I did not pick up on this by Gem... well said... thanks.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> That sounds a bit like the folks who praise God for giving them the wonderful gift of cancer, which is absolutely ridiculous.


That sounds a bit like a Red Herring.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> That sounds a bit like a Red Herring.



After looking at that again, it seems more harsh and more directed at you than I ever intended.


----------



## RH Clark

Israel said:


> Is it?
> Or, to you, are they?
> Which is it?
> Who is it?
> What is absolutely ridiculous?
> What is more ridiculous than the cross? And ridiculed it has been.
> What makes one man in the beholding say "this makes no sense"...and yet to another...it comes to be seen as the perfection of all sense?
> Will a man receive only what makes sense to him...and there find himself deceived in it all?
> Or, will a man be forced, compelled, brought to the place of receiving what makes no sense to him at all, and thereby be brought to see life?
> 
> 
> I submit, in respect, the fundamental question in all men, of all men, to all men...remains..."why am I?" and in the why am I, is the resident..."then why am I...me?"
> 
> Because God is God. And to fight that...is to be in opposition to oneself.
> 
> And that is where all grief lay...in the man taking his battle against himself...into the parking lot...and there making wounded all others.



Yes it's ridiculous because God didn't give them cancer in the first place. In the second place it's not good so why praise God for it. If it was such a wonderful gift we should be praying everyone get it instead of praying that God take it away. That's why it's ridiculous.

God is not giving sickness or disease to anyone. If he was then Jesus sure messed up his father's plans by healing so many folks.

I'm sorry, I don't want to make fun of anyone nor do I really want to make anyone mad but we have to realize that we have an enemy in this earth named Satan. We have to stand against that enemy and quit thinking that God is the source of all our problems. It's too important and too many people are destroyed because of that religious nonsense.

PS
When I say religious nonsense, I'm not talking about the things of God. I'm talking about the doctrines man has dreamed up about God.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> Yes it's ridiculous because God didn't give them cancer in the first place.


From the first place, "cursed is the ground for thy sake".


RH Clark said:


> In the second place it's not good so why praise God for it.


It is one of the things that works together for good. Only God is good.


RH Clark said:


> If it was such a wonderful gift we should be praying everyone get it instead of praying that God take it away. That's why it's ridiculous.


Everyone has it in one form or another.


RH Clark said:


> God is not giving sickness or disease to anyone. If he was then Jesus sure messed up his father's plans by healing so many folks.


"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.


RH Clark said:


> I'm sorry, I don't want to make fun of anyone nor do I really want to make anyone mad but we have to realize that we have an enemy in this earth named Satan. We have to stand against that enemy and quit thinking that God is the source of all our problems. It's too important and too many people are destroyed because of that religious nonsense.


Satan is but a servant of God. Satan has no power of his own with which to come against me. I have no power of my own to stand against him. God is all power.

My God is not sleeping. He is the true cause of anything that is a thing.


----------



## Israel

RH Clark said:


> Yes it's ridiculous because God didn't give them cancer in the first place. In the second place it's not good so why praise God for it. If it was such a wonderful gift we should be praying everyone get it instead of praying that God take it away. That's why it's ridiculous.
> 
> God is not giving sickness or disease to anyone. If he was then Jesus sure messed up his father's plans by healing so many folks.
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't want to make fun of anyone nor do I really want to make anyone mad but we have to realize that we have an enemy in this earth named Satan. We have to stand against that enemy and quit thinking that God is the source of all our problems. It's too important and too many people are destroyed because of that religious nonsense.
> 
> PS
> When I say religious nonsense, I'm not talking about the things of God. I'm talking about the doctrines man has dreamed up about God.



I trust you have read Gem's post.

It appears many men have a quarrel with God. In short "things are not the way I believe they should be".
The more timorous of us will rarely point to ourselves, or so we think, except in the most derivative of ways.
There is always a story, an event, a photo of a vulture sitting over  a starving baby's shoulder...waiting...and for this, men indict God.
Fair enough...men say "this is all wrong"...and record the story either in memory or Kodachrome...some perhaps even for what they consider their own good reasons. But, what is to be said of photographer if all he does , if his first instinct in "this is wrong" is to snap a Pulitzer Prize winning photo, and not reach out, in reality, for the baby? Whether prayer be a part of it, or not, (James addresses this), if all we do is just feel our call as documenters is to catalog stories of horrors and abuses, it's easy to see how such a disposition justifies a quarrel with God. And also seeds the arguments.
Some catalog nicer stories...of the baby revived in the exhausted firefighter's arms. Or the family saved by the intervention of some onlookers to keep their vehicle from dropping off a cliff. Strange. Some will say in the one case..."men are good"...and in the other, perhaps, God is evil...or non existent...and the only good men will ever find at best, might be at the hands of "other men". (notice how men always seem to be the garland winners?)
And suffering. Is it not measured against "innocence" on our private scale? The multiple rapist, or child abuser, who dies in prison after a beat down by other inmates...of what is our reaction constructed then? But, when a child is beaten, ahh, there's the place for another indictment. Almost in all, God is the loser. (so to speak)

We may like to believe...we believe in justice. We may like to believe, for convenience of our own soul's sake...mercy has some place of residence. I "feel" for the innocent...therefore, I must, in some way, have a kinship to innocence. I delight in the penalty against the "evil doer", so, justice too, must be akin to me.

Ahhh, as if God does not behold...and see the unjust actions, or does not see the suffering. But our faith is this, is it not...that in the seeing, in the beholding, he does not merely snap a picture to "indict man"...as rightfully indicted he may be...but he pours out his very soul, the life in which he delights, of His own son as payment, and in the most real sense, as Jesus becoming sin, who knew no sin, (the becoming of all he is not in his cooperation to let go of ALL he is as payment) is saying to men "here, if there be blame,(and I as God agree with you man, all is NOT as it should and shall be amongst you) I will take the blame...and hold you guiltless in it.
How this all fits perfectly to man being made to be in the image and likeness is seen as far more than mere perfection...it is the manifest outworking of imparting to man what is from the beginning...and the fullness thereof...mercy.

Man says "this is wrong, utterly and palpably...wrong...and I see it and know it!" But then what? If he does not see the God who, even in that agreement...goes the "extra mile"...what does he know? 

Jesus said: But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Would we "learn"? What God means of mercy? In the place where we have paraded "our sacrifice"...do we see His?
Not only for child beaten, but for malefactor..."beaten down" (previously adjudged of us...'rightly')?
Or, do we, like that deceived man who steals a kinship to innocence by "feeling bad for the 'innocents'"...never really see, to us they are no more than symbols for our own use? Why not just be true...and say "I don't like it...what you did "there"...because in empathy I don't want it to happen to me...or those "I love". If that belly swollen baby with vulture sitting behind, provokes no more than our own sense of outrage, have we really seen the baby? And if not, then have we seen God, at all?

You see, innocence to us, is remarkably relative...the baby...yes...the rapist...no, (except maybe speak to his mother)...but God...sees "it all"...and in the seeing has provided that true innocent, of no relativity in our calculations...as propitiation and yes...even comfort to a baby (who in our own sight...because of our own relativities...seems totally bereft of all). And hope of deliverance for the rapist.
(But ahh, what then if I discover "I find myself within, not wanting "that rapist" to have any hope, I prefer "he" be without it...at all, he deserves none!") Beware. Yes. learn what this means "I would have mercy...and not sacrifice" for in that place of scorn...we will find, at some determined point for ourselves, the mercy we deny others, is to the precise measure we deny it to ourselves...and we shall also surely find when there, there I nothing of "my sacrifice" to make due.
It is an effective way, a painful way, to learn of mercy, how that the "innocent" (in my sight) should go free, but the one I adjudge evil, should not. Be careful, for this is in perfect disagreement with God...the righteous MUST suffer, while it appears, the guilty are spared. What a strange thing to man is mercy from heaven. Different than all he knows.

People talk...many on here, about babies with cancer, or children...thinking they can find a place in argument against "a" god who manifestly sullies His own name, if he be...at all. Rarely do I hear, except as derision toward the parents who may be "praying" for such, of how utterly wrong it is...for the baby...or child. But, most of us speak as parents, and what is really being said "about the baby" is more the fear (and resentments) of us imagining we are in the parent's stead.
Yes, we say, this is wrong, the baby being sick...but (manifestly)...not as wrong as "stupid" parents who are "praying for it". What a waste of time!

Nothing is made right by simply, in our resentments, saying "this is wrong"...if we dare not enter the same struggle...to see the "right" manifest. I daresay, no matter how many "cures" are eventually found, death will always reign in the hearts of those not moved to see the One who not only has seen the "shortcoming" of beneficence amongst us...but who, in truth, and without any regard for his own hurt, surrendered all his own "innocence" to us, and then for us, that we might be innocent before Him, in love.

Oh, yes, the many will always say "But if there be God, all powerful, then, he then who allows (according to our measure) evil, is then, evil himself. It may always be only the few who resist this, their own projections into what they would do (for they think, I would make a much better God than you have) if given that seat.
Few see the power, that is true power, of that innocent one to resist the taking to himself that seat to spare himself (which is what the man who wants to project himself there is really all about..."I will disallow all that contradicts my sense of right, and thus secure "my own" peace)...and see. Jesus. And how, in that refusal to spare himself, all that he is, and is to God, is made free to all. He has said, few will believe it, and fewer still who "say" they do...will follow it (if you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed...) and stand free before God...and just as surely...men.
Yes, we think we see "things wrong"...but do we see the overwhelming rightness of God, and his provision there...for what appears "wrong" to us...made so much more than just alright?
Yes, he loves...stricken baby...and rapist, and has grieved far more than we could ever imagine...for both. And DONE something...about it. This thing we have done to ourselves, and yet he holds us guiltless. Now, guiltless, would we be innocent?


----------



## RH Clark

I love you guys but my position is that you are just about as wrong as you could be.

"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

You do understand that it is man who has divided the scriptures into verses just for searching convenience. Remove man's division and man and Satan's doctrine that God causes sickness, and that somehow gives him glory, and the scriptures will reveal their true meaning.

I am going to add parentheses since all punctuation was added by man also. Look at the words in parenthesis as a complete statement rather than ending the complete thought at verse 3.

 John 9:3-4King James Version (KJV)
 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents. "but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work."

Jesus is not saying that God blinded the man so that Jesus could heal him and show his glory. Jesus says that the man's blindness was not caused by sin from him or his parents. Then Jesus tells them that their concern shouldn't be what caused the blindness but that they need to work the works of God "healing" while there is time. 

The ground was cursed but it wasn't because that's what God wanted for man. The earth was cursed because of sin. I'm sure God knew man would sin but it is still never God's will that man sin.

The doctrine that God causes sickness and disease for his glory is straight from the pit of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored. Satan uses it to keep on stealing, killing, and destroying. Who will fight against Satan's destruction if they are convinced that God caused their illness to teach them, or so that God could get glory for it? The scriptures are very clear that sickness and disease are from Satan. To say that Satan does it at the behest of God is to make God and Satan coconspirators against man.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> I love you guys but my position is that you are just about as wrong as you could be.


Your position is finite theism. Love does not point a man to such.


----------



## gordon 2

gemcgrew said:


> Your position is finite theism. Love does not point a man to such.



This is why I like to stand in the kingdom. My position there needs not to parse notions. Finite Theism! I bet a buck someone got a university doctorate on Finite Theism and that love was largely out of the motivation--even if said to be...

Cursed are the finite theists for they shall inherit reverant  doctor's wrath! Not!

Infinite or finite theists ( theism) are as rare as shed angel wings,  and  though they can be summoned up from the under the ashes of some inquisitor's wood pit, to link the summons to love or the absence of love it a stretch! 

Such is my summons from my position. But hey... I suppose I should forgive.


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> I love you guys but my position is that you are just about as wrong as you could be.
> 
> "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
> 
> You do understand that it is man who has divided the scriptures into verses just for searching convenience. Remove man's division and man and Satan's doctrine that God causes sickness, and that somehow gives him glory, and the scriptures will reveal their true meaning.
> 
> I am going to add parentheses since all punctuation was added by man also. Look at the words in parenthesis as a complete statement rather than ending the complete thought at verse 3.
> 
> John 9:3-4King James Version (KJV)
> Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents. "but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work."
> 
> Jesus is not saying that God blinded the man so that Jesus could heal him and show his glory. Jesus says that the man's blindness was not caused by sin from him or his parents. Then Jesus tells them that their concern shouldn't be what caused the blindness but that they need to work the works of God "healing" while there is time.
> 
> The ground was cursed but it wasn't because that's what God wanted for man. The earth was cursed because of sin. I'm sure God knew man would sin but it is still never God's will that man sin.
> 
> The doctrine that God causes sickness and disease for his glory is straight from the pit of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored. Satan uses it to keep on stealing, killing, and destroying. Who will fight against Satan's destruction if they are convinced that God caused their illness to teach them, or so that God could get glory for it? The scriptures are very clear that sickness and disease are from Satan. To say that Satan does it at the behest of God is to make God and Satan coconspirators against man.



I agree with most of that. I don't think a Satan has anything to do with the ideology that God causes those things. It's just a failed attempt of man trying to push his understanding of the Almighty God into a simple little box that he can understand.


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> I agree with most of that. I don't think a Satan has anything to do with the ideology that God causes those things. It's just a failed attempt of man trying to push his understanding of the Almighty God into a simple little box that he can understand.



That's fine, I can accept that observation just as easily. It's perhaps even a better way to express it also since it doesn't sound like a accusation, which is not the way I intended it anyway.


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> I've lost track; what is the current score in the Men vs. Satan game?



We win in the end!


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> We win in the end!



I did not recognize that my post would lead to the usurping of the glory of Jesus Christ.  I have erased it and request that you do the same


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> I did not recognize that my post would lead to the usurping of the glory of Jesus Christ.  I have erased it and request that you do the same



I think you must have interpreted  something I said a lot differently than it was meant. I really don't know what you are talking about and can't understand how anything said could be considered usurping the glory of Christ.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> I think you must have interpreted  something I said a lot differently than it was meant. I really don't know what you are talking about and can't understand how anything said could be considered usurping the glory of Christ.



No man has ever or will ever defeat Satan.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> Jesus is not saying that God blinded the man so that Jesus could heal him and show his glory. Jesus says that the man's blindness was not caused by sin from him or his parents.


The man was born blind. Neither his nor his parent's sin was the cause. The man is not self-existent. God created him blind for the purpose "that the works of God should be made manifest in him."



RH Clark said:


> Then Jesus tells them that their concern shouldn't be what caused the blindness but that they need to work the works of God "healing" while there is time.


Not supported by the text at all.


RH Clark said:


> The ground was cursed but it wasn't because that's what God wanted for man. The earth was cursed because of sin. I'm sure God knew man would sin but it is still never God's will that man sin.


Adam did not curse the ground. Sin did not curse the ground. God cursed the ground.


RH Clark said:


> The doctrine that God causes sickness and disease for his glory is straight from the pit of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored.


"And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee." Exodus 15:26

"Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed." Deuteronomy 28:61



RH Clark said:


> Satan uses it to keep on stealing, killing, and destroying. Who will fight against Satan's destruction if they are convinced that God caused their illness to teach them, or so that God could get glory for it? The scriptures are very clear that sickness and disease are from Satan. To say that Satan does it at the behest of God is to make God and Satan coconspirators against man.


Sometimes Satan or man's sin is the apparent cause. God is over Satan and man. Only God is self-existent. Everything else is sustained and actively caused to exist by God. God is ultimate cause.

"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> No man has ever or will ever defeat Satan.



Not alone, but thank God we are not alone!

Revelation 12:10-11King James Version (KJV)
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.



Hebrews 2:14King James Version (KJV)
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;



1 John 3:8King James Version (KJV)
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.



Satan is already a defeated foe. All he has is the power of deception.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> Not alone, but thank God we are not alone!
> 
> Revelation 12:10-11King James Version (KJV)
> 10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
> 
> 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 2:14King James Version (KJV)
> 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
> 
> 
> 
> 1 John 3:8King James Version (KJV)
> 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
> 
> 
> 
> Satan is already a defeated foe. All he has is the power of deception.



Will you recognize my request?  I will erase all references.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> The man was born blind. Neither his nor his parent's sin was the cause. The man is not self-existent. God created him blind for the purpose "that the works of God should be made manifest in him."
> 
> 
> Not supported by the text at all.
> 
> Adam did not curse the ground. Sin did not curse the ground. God cursed the ground.
> 
> "And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee." Exodus 15:26
> 
> "Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed." Deuteronomy 28:61
> 
> 
> Sometimes Satan or man's sin is the apparent cause. God is over Satan and man. Only God is self-existent. Everything else is sustained and actively caused to exist by God. God is ultimate cause.
> 
> "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."





If you really want to learn the truth you can dig into the original languages and you will see that they are not saying that God is the source of sickness and disease.

Concerning blessings and cursing, you have to understand that the curse is the penalty for sin. It is a result of sin. It is not a teaching tool brought on by God, though it can be used by God. The situation with the Egyptians is completely different than that of us. They cannot be used as a parallel to make your point.  

"God is ultimate cause"
No. That would be laying sin at the feet of God. It is also saying that God is the source of everything that is wrong in the earth. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

You are trying to use scriptures to support your position, but the manner in which you are interpreting them is not supported by most of the NT. You have to interpret scripture so that it all agrees.


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> Will you recognize my request?  I will erase all references.



I apologize if I have offended you but I feel what I said is completely justified and I think it may be too important to someone else to erase.


----------



## hummerpoo

Hey GEM,
If you want to learn how to interpret scripture read this guys book, which includes:

“I no longer hold God responsible for illnesses, accidents, and natural disasters, because I realize that I gain little and I lose so much when I blame God for those things. I can worship a God who hates suffering but cannot eliminate it, more easily than I can worship a God who chooses to make children suffer and die, for whatever exalted reason.”

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/when-bad-things-happen-to-good-people/

another quote from the same guy. 

"My sense is God and I came to an accommodation with each other a couple of decades ago, where he's gotten used to the things that I'm not capable of and I've come to terms with things he's not capable of," 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124582959

He obviously has gotten God whittled down to a size he can handle.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> If you really want to learn the truth you can dig into the original languages and you will see that they are not saying that God is the source of sickness and disease.


This is for you to show.


RH Clark said:


> Concerning blessings and cursing, you have to understand that the curse is the penalty for sin. It is a result of sin. It is not a teaching tool brought on by God, though it can be used by God.


The wages of sin is death. Whether you call it a curse, penalty or result, who implements it?


RH Clark said:


> The situation with the Egyptians is completely different than that of us. They cannot be used as a parallel to make your point.


That was cool. May I try it?
The situation with the Egyptians is exactly the same as that of us. They can be used as a parallel to make my point.


RH Clark said:


> "God is ultimate cause"
> No. That would be laying sin at the feet of God.


So what. Be specific. Are you referring to Micah 7:19?


RH Clark said:


> It is also saying that God is the source of everything that is wrong in the earth. Nothing could be farther from the truth.


Source and cause have essentially the same meaning.

"Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places." Psalm 135:6


RH Clark said:


> You are trying to use scriptures to support your position, but the manner in which you are interpreting them is not supported by most of the NT. You have to interpret scripture so that it all agrees.


By most of the NT? So, my position is supported by some of the NT? Does most of the NT not address the topic at all?
Is this your defense or admission?


----------



## gemcgrew

hummerpoo said:


> Hey GEM,
> If you want to learn how to interpret scripture read this guys book, which includes:
> 
> “I no longer hold God responsible for illnesses, accidents, and natural disasters, because I realize that I gain little and I lose so much when I blame God for those things. I can worship a God who hates suffering but cannot eliminate it, more easily than I can worship a God who chooses to make children suffer and die, for whatever exalted reason.”
> 
> http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/when-bad-things-happen-to-good-people/
> 
> another quote from the same guy.
> 
> "My sense is God and I came to an accommodation with each other a couple of decades ago, where he's gotten used to the things that I'm not capable of and I've come to terms with things he's not capable of,"
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124582959
> 
> He obviously has gotten God whittled down to a size he can handle.


Let me know if you come across a free PDF version.


----------



## Israel

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.…

(Many versions use "vanity" there, in place of futility, and although I see that the interlinear I reference opts for "futility", I suppose that vanity, if understood to mean "all attempt is ultimately vain, (as in useless)" I see that it also rightly serves the meaning. Unfortunately, vanity is less seen in that context than some others. But really, either way, even if vanity used in its more common sense of today, meaning excessively concerned with less than weighty matters due to an over concern about one's self, it could suffice.)

Regardless, the futility (vanity) that leads to frustration is appointed, by a someone, in hope. A someone with power to subject all of creation to it. One will decide where hope lies, and who has power to subject creation to himself. 

If, and when he is frustrated in his decision, know it is both purposed and for hope.

"Therefore, behold, I will allure her, Bring her into the wilderness And speak kindly to her. "Then I will give her her vineyards from there, And the valley of Achor as a door of hope. And she will sing there as in the days of her youth, As in the day when she came up from the land of Egypt. "It will come about in that day," declares the LORD, "That you will call Me Ishi And will no longer call Me Baali.…

"For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, So that they will be mentioned by their names no more.…


No other God. 

No other husband.


----------



## hobbs27

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ.

Thank you Lord for the gift of eternal life that death I will never know.


----------



## Artfuldodger

In comparing the things God put on the Egyptians, why is it completely different than us?
Does God only control when he wants things to happen a certain way? Otherwise he leaves it up to happenstance?
How do we know what we control vs what God controls?

Is God really a micro manager or does he just intervene every once in a while?

Proverbs 16:9
We can make our plans, but the LORD determines our steps.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ.
> 
> Thank you Lord for the gift of eternal life that death I will never know.



You will die a physical death and your body will return to dust(unless the Lord returns first).

When He returns the second time,then and only then will all death be done away with.

See Rom.8:11


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> In comparing the things God put on the Egyptians, why is it completely different than us?
> Does God only control when he wants things to happen a certain way? Otherwise he leaves it up to happenstance?
> How do we know what we control vs what God controls?
> 
> Is God really a micro manager or does he just intervene every once in a while?
> 
> Proverbs 16:9
> We can make our plans, but the LORD determines our steps.




The Egyptians are different from us because they didn't have a covenant with God and they were oppressing and enslaving those who did have a covenant with God?

God only intervenes when someone calls out to him in faith to intervene.


----------



## RH Clark

Quote:
Originally Posted by RH Clark View Post 
If you really want to learn the truth you can dig into the original languages and you will see that they are not saying that God is the source of sickness and disease. 

This is for you to show.



No, the best I can do is perhaps give you something that will cause you to seek. That's all any of us can do for each other.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> No, the best I can do is perhaps give you something that will cause you to seek. That's all any of us can do for each other.


Fine. In regard to original languages, I will consider the best that you can present. If that is all that you can do for me, will you?


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> You will die a physical death and your body will return to dust(unless the Lord returns first).
> 
> When He returns the second time,then and only then will all death be done away with.
> 
> See Rom.8:11




So in your mind, Jesus failed?
John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Romans 8:2

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> So in your mind, Jesus failed?
> John 3:16
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
> Romans 8:2
> 
> 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.



You are trying to use the spiritual to disprove the physical.

Are you telling me that in Rom 8:11 that "mortal bodies" is speaking of a 
spiritual body?


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> You are trying to use the spiritual to disprove the physical.
> 
> Are you telling me that in Rom 8:11 that "mortal bodies" is speaking of a
> spiritual body?



I think Romans 8:11 is made clear in the rest of the chapter 

In 1984 my mortal body received a spiritual indwelling, and through that Spirit I will never die. I live in a resurrected state.
 Sure this flesh will go back to the dust in which it came..flesh belongs to the Earth, but my spirit, my consciousness will go to the spiritual realm where it Belongs.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> I think Romans 8:11 is made clear in the rest of the chapter
> 
> In 1984 my mortal body received a spiritual indwelling, and through that Spirit I will never die. I live in a resurrected state.
> Sure this flesh will go back to the dust in which it came..flesh belongs to the Earth, but my spirit, my consciousness will go to the spiritual realm where it Belongs.



The spiritual resurrection(regeneration),that took place in you in 1984 is the one spoken of in John 5:25.It's the one that "now is".

There is a physical one in your future also, the one spoken of in John 5:28.The one that "is coming".

Two entirely different resurrections.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> The spiritual resurrection(regeneration),that took place in you in 1984 is the one spoken of in John 5:25.It's the one that "now is".
> 
> There is a physical one in your future also, the one spoken of in John 5:28.The one that "is coming".
> 
> Two entirely different resurrections.



And this is where we disagree. Same resurrection , different group.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> Fine. In regard to original languages, I will consider the best that you can present. If that is all that you can do for me, will you?



Ask me about a specific scripture and I'll do the best I can.


"Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places." Psalm 135:6
 If this is what you are asking about, I would say that it doesn't say that everything that happens in the earth is pleasing to God. Neither does it say that God is responsible for everything that happens. It only says that God does as he pleases. 

We know that everything that happens isn't pleasing to God. The sin of the earth wasn't pleasing to God before the flood. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't pleasing to God. The sin of the Egyptians wasn't pleasing to God. No sin nor actions of sin are pleasing to God, nor does God cause men to sin. God has given dominion and authority in the earth to men. Much that men do does not please God. The evils that are in this world are either from the free will of evil men or from original sin, not because God has caused it and not because it is pleasing to God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Then a man must be born three times.

If the last rebirth is physical, why does God have us leave the physical? Where do we as souls wait for the physical resurrection? If we must wait until Jesus returns to see him as he is, where do we wait?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Everlasting life?

Is that physical or spiritual? Which one do believers inherit?


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> Everlasting life?
> 
> Is that physical or spiritual? Which one do believers inherit?



Somehow the two will merge together.It's called glorification.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> Then a man must be born three times.
> 
> If the last rebirth is physical, why does God have us leave the physical? Where do we as souls wait for the physical resurrection? If we must wait until Jesus returns to see him as he is, where do we wait?



To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. You will wait in a spiritual body with the Lord. You won't need a physical body until you return to the earth. You will see him as he is as soon as you are face to face. It won't matter that you are in spiritual form, you won't even know the difference.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> And this is where we disagree. Same resurrection , different group.



It's the same group,according to Rom.8:11. The same ones that have the indwelling of the Spirit,are the ones whose mortal bodies will be redeemed.


----------



## Artfuldodger

The Holy Spirit gives life to our mortal bodies that will decay. When does the Spirit give our dying mortal bodies life?


----------



## hobbs27

You don't understand ROM 8:11 posing the statement that (if) the spirit indwells you have received eternal life because of that Spirit?

John 5 resurrection is about the same resurrection nature coming to two groups at two times. The first began at Pentecost.... That was the ( now is ) the other was at 70 ad and that was for the dead in the graves. They had to hear Him to receive everlasting life. His voice, IE the Gospel is what gave those men of Galilee life at Pentecost, His voice is what raised the OT dead @ 70 ad. His voice is what gave me eternal life in 1984.
 Jesus said to Martha, I am the resurrection!
 I believe He is!


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> You don't understand ROM 8:11 posing the statement that (if) the spirit indwells you have received eternal life because of that Spirit?
> 
> John 5 resurrection is about the same resurrection nature coming to two groups at two times. The first began at Pentecost.... That was the ( now is ) the other was at 70 ad and that was for the dead in the graves. They had to hear Him to receive everlasting life. His voice, IE the Gospel is what gave those men of Galilee life at Pentecost, His voice is what raised the OT dead @ 70 ad. His voice is what gave me eternal life in 1984.
> Jesus said to Martha, I am the resurrection!
> I believe He is!



You are missing a very vital point in this text.Paul is saying that if the Spirit is dwelling in you(in other words if you've been born again spiritually)PRESENT TENSE,...then the Father SHALL(FUTURE TENSE) quicken,or make alive, your mortal bodies(the bodies that die)

11 But if the Spirit of    him(the Father)     that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you,     he(the Father)       that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

In a nutshell hes saying if youve been resurrected spiritually,then you will be resurrected physically also.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> You are missing a very vital point in this text.Paul is saying that if the Spirit is dwelling in you(in other words if you've been born again spiritually)PRESENT TENSE,...then the Father SHALL(FUTURE TENSE) quicken,or make alive, your mortal bodies(the bodies that die)
> 
> 11 But if the Spirit of    him(the Father)     that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you,     he(the Father)       that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
> 
> In a nutshell hes saying if youve been resurrected spiritually,then you will be resurrected physically also.



I don't think so.
12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you [f]must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> I don't think so.
> 12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you [f]must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.



Verse 12 is a summation of what he just said and put into a practical application.He's saying,because you've been made a new creature by the Spirit,then live like a new creature.Don't keep living like you did before.Repent.
Remember what James said about what sin does? "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed.Then when lust hath conceived,it bringeth forth sin,and when sin is finished,it bringeth forth death."


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> You are missing a very vital point in this text.Paul is saying that if the Spirit is dwelling in you(in other words if you've been born again spiritually)PRESENT TENSE,...then the Father SHALL(FUTURE TENSE) quicken,or make alive, your mortal bodies(the bodies that die)
> 
> 
> 11 But if the Spirit of    him(the Father)     that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you,     he(the Father)       that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
> 
> In a nutshell hes saying if youve been resurrected spiritually,then you will be resurrected physically also.



I'm going to have to agree with Hobbs, that isn't what Paul is saying. Under the physical resurrection concept God will quicken all bodies. All bodies won't have the Spirit of the Father. Unless you are willing to believe the dead un-elect will stay in the ground.
That is a very vital point of the text, that only people with the Spirit are quickened.

What Paul is saying is that only people with the Spirit of God will be quickened. God's Spirit(the same one that raised Jesus from the dead) will make you a "dying mortal" alive.
You a person born mortal will now be given everlasting life by the Spirit of God. You have defeated death(mortality) by receiving this Spirit.
Otherwise you would just die.


----------



## hobbs27

I'm going over some old notes right now on this. There's a few different bodies spoken of in Romans that is not exactly what they appear to be in our modern minds.
 With a little help from a friend I may be able to put them together and send them to you in a PM. There's a lot to this, and more than I want to open up to public scrutiny from folks that aren't capable of thinking spiritually or digesting meat.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Verse 12 is a summation of what he just said and put into a practical application.He's saying,because you've been made a new creature by the Spirit,then live like a new creature.Don't keep living like you did before.Repent.
> Remember what James said about what sin does? "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed.Then when lust hath conceived,it bringeth forth sin,and when sin is finished,it bringeth forth death."



When is one made alive by the Holy Spirit then? You make it seem like this new creature isn't quickened until he sheds his flesh. That he can somehow still die even though he's already been quickened by the Holy Spirit?
When is on quickened by the Holy Spirit?


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm going to have to agree with Hobbs, that isn't what Paul is saying. Under the physical resurrection concept God will quicken all bodies. All bodies won't have the Spirit of the Father. Unless you are willing to believe the dead un-elect will stay in the ground.
> That is a very vital point of the text, that only people with the Spirit are quickened.
> 
> What Paul is saying is that only people with the Spirit of God will be quickened. God's Spirit(the same one that raised Jesus from the dead) will make you a "dying mortal" alive.
> You a person born mortal will now be given everlasting life by the Spirit of God. You have defeated death(mortality) by receiving this Spirit.
> Otherwise you would just die.



I nor Paul is excluding the nonregenerate from the physical resurrection.He's just not addressing them here.The whole chapter context is about "those that are in Christ,who walk by the Spirit"(regenerate)


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> When is one made alive by the Holy Spirit then? You make it seem like this new creature isn't quickened until he sheds his flesh. That he can somehow still die even though he's already been quickened by the Holy Spirit?
> When is on quickened by the Holy Spirit?



One who is elect is quickened by the Spirit sometime between conception and physical death.(born again)

Our physical body will raise when Jesus calls at the last trump.(future)


----------



## Artfuldodger

The Spirit quickens. Quickening Is the Initial Operation of the Spirit.
Quickening Imparts Life.

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life.

John 5:21
For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.

2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If one isn't quickened they are already dead;

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

James 1:15
Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

1 Corinthians 15:21
For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

Romans 7:24
Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

When does the Spirit quicken us? From what kind of death? 

Does the Spirit quicken us from eternal death and give us eternal life? Are we physically born dead, mortal as Paul explains it, and need the Spirit to quicken us from this mortal death?

Isn't this why Christ died? So that we can be quickened from death by the Holy Spirit?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 6:7
knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7for he who has died is freed from sin. 8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

"Now if we have died with Christ"
"we shall also live with Him"

Reading this makes it appear that death is a done deal. We died with Christ. If we died with Christ then we arose with Christ.
Having been raised from the dead, is never to die again. Christ died for us.


----------



## Israel

For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;…


----------



## hobbs27

Prov. 13:12Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 6:7
> knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7for he who has died is freed from sin. 8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
> 
> "Now if we have died with Christ"
> "we shall also live with Him"
> 
> Reading this makes it appear that death is a done deal. We died with Christ. If we died with Christ then we arose with Christ.
> Having been raised from the dead, is never to die again. Christ died for us.



For me this is all about our identification with Christ. Notice how Paul tells us to "consider" ourselves to be dead to sin but alive to God. To be born again it to consider your old self and old life to be dead. That old sin self and life died with Christ. The new life and new self is risen with Christ to live righteous before God.

A Christian shouldn't look at their self as simply a forgiven sinner. We need complete oneness and identification with Christ. Everything Christ attained is ours. We are one with Christ. He died, we died, he rose, we rose.


----------



## Artfuldodger

For me it's about being dead and awakened by Christ! My old self was crucified with Him. It died. It's gone. I now have everlasting life. I'll never die again. I am alive!
Jesus escaped death for me. The wages of sin is death. He paid the price so that I wouldn't have to die an everlasting death.


----------



## BigCats

I believe God is you father he likes it when we come to him when we talk to him when we spent time with him just like our earthly father. I've always believed that when we are not spending that time he throws something at us to bring us closer to him to pray to him and spend time with him, 90% of the time when things are going great in your life most people aren't praying and spending time in in his word but when something goes wrong in your life your on your knees praying. I also believe everything happens for a reason there is also a positive in everything most of the time people never look for the positive in things only the bad but no matter what you can find a positive in any situation.


----------



## RH Clark

BigCats said:


> I believe God is you father he likes it when we come to him when we talk to him when we spent time with him just like our earthly father. I've always believed that when we are not spending that time he throws something at us to bring us closer to him to pray to him and spend time with him, 90% of the time when things are going great in your life most people aren't praying and spending time in in his word but when something goes wrong in your life your on your knees praying. I also believe everything happens for a reason there is also a positive in everything most of the time people never look for the positive in things only the bad but no matter what you can find a positive in any situation.



While I agree that God will sometimes place you into situations that are uncomfortable for you at the time for your spiritual growth or for the benefit of others, those situations don't include sickness, disease or anything that harms you in any way.

What would we do to a father who injected his children with a deadly disease in order to get them to pay more attention to him? Bad things happen to good people because we live in a fallen world where sickness and death entered in because of sin.


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> While I agree that God will sometimes place you into situations that are uncomfortable for you at the time for your spiritual growth or for the benefit of others, those situations don't include sickness, disease or anything that harms you in any way.
> 
> What would we do to a father who injected his children with a deadly disease in order to get them to pay more attention to him? Bad things happen to good people because we live in a fallen world where sickness and death entered in because of sin.



If sickness and death are a result of sin then saved folks would never be sick or die. And mean unrighteous folks would all die young.

 Sickness and death is merely God's natural order of biological life.


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> If sickness and death are a result of sin then saved folks would never be sick or die. And mean unrighteous folks would all die young.
> 
> Sickness and death is merely God's natural order of biological life.



No, sickness and disease are in the world because of the curse on the earth that came as a result of Adam's sin. I don't mean that people don't get sick if they don't sin. That would be like saying people don't need to get saved if they don't sin. Even though we have received the firstfruits of salvation, we are still to receive the redemption of our bodies, when corruption will put on incorruption. 

Sickness and disease is not God's natural order, it entered in with sin .There was no sickness or death in the garden before sin, there is no sickness or death in Heaven, and when God takes back control of the earth from man, there will be no sickness or death.


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> No, sickness and disease are in the world because of the curse on the earth that came as a result of Adam's sin. I don't mean that people don't get sick if they don't sin. That would be like saying people don't need to get saved if they don't sin. Even though we have received the firstfruits of salvation, we are still to receive the redemption of our bodies, when corruption will put on incorruption.
> 
> Sickness and disease is not God's natural order, it entered in with sin .There was no sickness or death in the garden before sin, there is no sickness or death in Heaven, and when God takes back control of the earth from man, there will be no sickness or death.



Was there any reproduction at all in the garden before the fall of man? Animals, plants, etc ; If so, why was there a need if physical death did not exist?


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> Was there any reproduction at all in the garden before the fall of man? Animals, plants, etc ; If so, why was there a need if physical death did not exist?



My guess is that God wanted them to replenish the earth, so he told them all to be fruitful and multiply. You might say they would have overpopulated the earth without death ,but how do we know what would have happened without sin? Possibly God intended men to populate all the universe that he created. It seems like an awfully big place just for us to populate one tiny planet. 


The scripture however says that death entered in because of sin.
Romans 5:12King James Version (KJV)
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> My guess is that God wanted them to replenish the earth, so he told them all to be fruitful and multiply. You might say they would have overpopulated the earth without death ,but how do we know what would have happened without sin? Possibly God intended men to populate all the universe that he created. It seems like an awfully big place just for us to populate one tiny planet.
> 
> 
> The scripture however says that death entered in because of sin.
> Romans 5:12King James Version (KJV)
> 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:



When I believed as you do, I always wondered why they were told to [ replenish] an earth that never had people on it before. Strange choice of words , isn't it?

 Adam &, Eve ate, therefore biologically they were no different than us, it took food to keep them alive. They also ate fruit, fruit is part of a tree or plants way of reproducing, therefore we know death and rebirth was happening to n the garden.

 God told Adam and Eve, In the day you eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge you will surely die...Now if you're a stickler like I am that God cannot lie, and that scripture is God breathed, then you must admit that Adam and Eve died that day. They died a spiritual death..cast out of the garden where they had direct contact with God and access to the tree of life. That death reigned from Adam to Moses..IE, throughout the old Covenant per Romans 5:14. If that death were biological death, it would have reigned from Abel..

That death is the death that Christ fixed for us, He being the tree of life , giving us direct access to God again.


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> When I believed as you do, I always wondered why they were told to [ replenish] an earth that never had people on it before. Strange choice of words , isn't it?
> 
> Adam &, Eve ate, therefore biologically they were no different than us, it took food to keep them alive. They also ate fruit, fruit is part of a tree or plants way of reproducing, therefore we know death and rebirth was happening to n the garden.
> 
> God told Adam and Eve, In the day you eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge you will surely die...Now if you're a stickler like I am that God cannot lie, and that scripture is God breathed, then you must admit that Adam and Eve died that day. They died a spiritual death..cast out of the garden where they had direct contact with God and access to the tree of life. That death reigned from Adam to Moses..IE, throughout the old Covenant per Romans 5:14. If that death were biological death, it would have reigned from Abel..
> 
> That death is the death that Christ fixed for us, He being the tree of life , giving us direct access to God again.



The fact that they ate fruit doesn't say to me that there was death, just that trees produced fruit.

Yes, that sin brought death, both physical and spiritual, which is why Jesus died physically as well. We just haven't yet received the redemption of our bodies.

As far as dying on the day they ate of the tree, I suspect God accepted the physical death of the animals he killed for them, just as he did later under the priesthood.

I don't understand why you would think physical death was God's plan for them. It isn't God's plan in Heaven now and scripture says that when God takes the earth back he will do away with death.


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> The fact that they ate fruit doesn't say to me that there was death, just that trees produced fruit.
> 
> Yes, that sin brought death, both physical and spiritual, which is why Jesus died physically as well. We just haven't yet received the redemption of our bodies.
> 
> As far as dying on the day they ate of the tree, I suspect God accepted the physical death of the animals he killed for them, just as he did later under the priesthood.
> 
> I don't understand why you would think physical death was God's plan for them. It isn't God's plan in Heaven now and scripture says that when God takes the earth back he will do away with death.



Adam and Eve weren't in heaven.

 The redemption of our bodies you speak of is not scriptural. It is the redemption of our ( body). The [ our] was the first century Christians. The [ body] was the church or body of Christ.
About half of the versions use the word body and half bodies, but when you dig deeper and go straight to the Greek you will see it is their ( plural) body (singular). .. 

Physical death was part of God's plan because he made all man to die physically, Adam and Eve and those that were left outside the garden. It's God's natural order for man and all animals to die here on Earth, BTW God isn't coming here to rule on Earth physically. Jesus rules the Spiritual realm here already and always will.


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> Adam and Eve weren't in heaven.
> 
> The redemption of our bodies you speak of is not scriptural. It is the redemption of our ( body). The [ our] was the first century Christians. The [ body] was the church or body of Christ.
> About half of the versions use the word body and half bodies, but when you dig deeper and go straight to the Greek you will see it is their ( plural) body (singular). ..
> 
> Physical death was part of God's plan because he made all man to die physically, Adam and Eve and those that were left outside the garden. It's God's natural order for man and all animals to die here on Earth, BTW God isn't coming here to rule on Earth physically. Jesus rules the Spiritual realm here already and always will.



Sorry hobbs, but our doctrines are so far apart that I think we are just going to have to disagree. I see no benefit in starting arguments on so many different fronts.


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> Sorry hobbs, but our doctrines are so far apart that I think we are just going to have to disagree. I see no benefit in starting arguments on so many different fronts.



OK, but my only doctrine is Jesus is Lord and Sola Scriptura.


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> OK, but my only doctrine is Jesus is Lord and Sola Scriptura.



Everyone who disagrees on doctrine makes the claim that they are 100% scripturally correct.


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> Everyone who disagrees on doctrine makes the claim that they are 100% scripturally correct.



I learn from being wrong. Have you looked into redemption of our bodies vs body? I would have.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> When I believed as you do, I always wondered why they were told to [ replenish] an earth that never had people on it before. Strange choice of words , isn't it?
> 
> Adam &, Eve ate, therefore biologically they were no different than us, it took food to keep them alive. They also ate fruit, fruit is part of a tree or plants way of reproducing, therefore we know death and rebirth was happening to n the garden.
> 
> God told Adam and Eve, In the day you eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge you will surely die...Now if you're a stickler like I am that God cannot lie, and that scripture is God breathed, then you must admit that Adam and Eve died that day. They died a spiritual death..cast out of the garden where they had direct contact with God and access to the tree of life. That death reigned from Adam to Moses..IE, throughout the old Covenant per Romans 5:14. If that death were biological death, it would have reigned from Abel..
> 
> That death is the death that Christ fixed for us, He being the tree of life , giving us direct access to God again.



This "replenish" from strongs is "to fill".Not "to fill again".

Also notice there was no death spoken of before the curse.
I find it very significant that even the animals that are carnivores now ate the herbs of the field(Gen.1).Wonder why? No death.

The day they ate of the fruit they not only died spiritually,but they started the clock ticking down of the span of their physical life also.

When it says death reigned from Adam to Moses,you would be correct in saying it refers to spiritual death.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Could you imagine how bad it would have been if certain bacteria, fungi, and viruses living in or on our bodies didn't die?
Just think a toe nail fungus that wouldn't die. Gut flora that doesn't die. Mosquitoes that never die all the while filling the earth and I don't mean filling again. Algae that filled and filled, never dying.


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> Adam and Eve weren't in heaven.
> 
> The redemption of our bodies you speak of is not scriptural. It is the redemption of our ( body). The [ our] was the first century Christians. The [ body] was the church or body of Christ.
> About half of the versions use the word body and half bodies, but when you dig deeper and go straight to the Greek you will see it is their ( plural) body (singular). ..
> 
> Physical death was part of God's plan because he made all man to die physically, Adam and Eve and those that were left outside the garden. It's God's natural order for man and all animals to die here on Earth, BTW God isn't coming here to rule on Earth physically. Jesus rules the Spiritual realm here already and always will.



Is then, this when spoken, meaning the vile body (of humiliation) is the church?

Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> Could you imagine how bad it would have been if certain bacteria, fungi, and viruses living in or on our bodies didn't die?
> Just think a toe nail fungus that wouldn't die. Gut flora that doesn't die. Mosquitoes that never die all the while filling the earth and I don't mean filling again. Algae that filled and filled, never dying.



Can you imagine everything that God created as being good and very good,as He described it? I'm pretty sure every thing in God's perfect ecosystem worked together in perfect unison before it was cursed.Even gut flora...without death.

I wonder just how big your God is when you say such things.
You might want to take a walk down Job 38 again.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Can you imagine everything that God created as being good and very good,as He described it? I'm pretty sure every thing in God's perfect ecosystem worked together in perfect unison before it was cursed.Even gut flora...without death.
> 
> I wonder just how big your God is when you say such things.
> You might want to take a walk down Job 38 again.



I say such things because I know it didn't happen that way. God is in control and he designed things that are physical to decay and die. He designed rocks to wear away by water. He designed gut flora to die and replenish as needed.

Either that or God knew man would fall and was looking ahead when he gave us gut flora that would die. It's his system, not mine. I'm fine with the way he designed it. I'm just glad he designed the cold virus to die within my aching body. I'm glad my flesh died and I'm glad that it will eventually decay and return to dust. 

Dust that future generations of God's eco-system can use to replenish the earth. Maybe a buzzard will eat me. The circle of life. Wow, God did know what he was doing. I never doubted that he did. 
Plan A is working out perfectly.

"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!"


----------



## hobbs27

Israel said:


> Is then, this when spoken, meaning the vile body (of humiliation) is the church?
> 
> Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.



I've never read that to be the church. In some ways it would fit, in some not. I lean toward not , but they as a group were waiting on Jesus to come with His reward and transform them. I remember being transformed myself.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> This "replenish" from strongs is "to fill".Not "to fill again".
> 
> Also notice there was no death spoken of before the curse.
> I find it very significant that even the animals that are carnivores now ate the herbs of the field(Gen.1).Wonder why? No death.
> 
> The day they ate of the fruit they not only died spiritually,but they started the clock ticking down of the span of their physical life also.
> 
> When it says death reigned from Adam to Moses,you would be correct in saying it refers to spiritual death.



Apparently a change in the English language over 400 years since the kjv was penned. This shows why it is so important to investigate the words and meanings in Hebrew and Greek. Thanks for pointing that out.

I still don't see God telling Adam he would die two deaths as punishment.


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> I learn from being wrong. Have you looked into redemption of our bodies vs body? I would have.



Yes, I have looked into it. Scholars such as James Denny, Marvin Vincent, Henry Alford, Joseph Thayer and many others do not interpret scriptures that speak of corruption putting on incorruption as speaking of the church or body of Christ.

The fatal flaw in your interpretation is to suppose that the Body of Christ or Church is corrupt. When the Bible speak of these it isn't speaking about someone who attends a service. I am sure there are unsaved individuals in any service, but those who have become part of the Body of Christ are no longer corrupt spiritually speaking. No born again member of the Church is corrupt spiritually. You seem to have no understanding of righteousness by faith.

The only way I can see that you could interpret corruption putting on incorruption as speaking of the spiritual church is to somehow only accept a works based righteousness, for somehow the church would need to earn this incorruption which it has not yet attained by faith in Christ.

No sir, corruption putting on incorruption refers to our physical bodies which are not yet immortal.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Apparently a change in the English language over 400 years since the kjv was penned. This shows why it is so important to investigate the words and meanings in Hebrew and Greek. Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> I still don't see God telling Adam he would die two deaths as punishment.



Pretty sure the word "death" covers all death.

BTW, Jesus didn't take away physical death,but he took away the sting of death for his people.


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> Yes, I have looked into it. Scholars such as James Denny, Marvin Vincent, Henry Alford, Joseph Thayer and many others do not interpret scriptures that speak of corruption putting on incorruption as speaking of the church or body of Christ.
> 
> The fatal flaw in your interpretation is to suppose that the Body of Christ or Church is corrupt. When the Bible speak of these it isn't speaking about someone who attends a service. I am sure there are unsaved individuals in any service, but those who have become part of the Body of Christ are no longer corrupt spiritually speaking. No born again member of the Church is corrupt spiritually. You seem to have no understanding of righteousness by faith.
> 
> The only way I can see that you could interpret corruption putting on incorruption as speaking of the spiritual church is to somehow only accept a works based righteousness, for somehow the church would need to earn this incorruption which it has not yet attained by faith in Christ.
> 
> No sir, corruption putting on incorruption refers to our physical bodies which are not yet immortal.




But I didn't say the body of Christ was corrupt.
 I'll explain in laymen terms then you can compare that to the scriptures of Romans 8.

The old Covenant body was dying at the time Paul was preaching his ministry. ( Hebrews 8:13) That old Covenant body was corrupt ( Matthew23)...at the same time the New Covenant body was being resurrected out of the dying old, hence the birth pangs.  
 The old Covenant was a physical fleshly realm, The New Covenant is a spiritual realm reality, now, but was just coming to Life in the first century.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Pretty sure the word "death" covers all death.
> 
> BTW, Jesus didn't take away physical death,but he took away the sting of death for his people.



How would that coincide with eternal life?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> How would that coincide with eternal life?



The entire 15th chapter of 1 Cor. speaks very plainly about what happens at our physical death,comparing our bodies as seed that is sown.The seed dies then new life springs forth.
Pauls conclusion in vs55 is Oh death where is thy sting,Oh grave where is thy victory; this covers both spiritual death(sin),and physical death(grave).We have victory over both through Christ,not just one but both.


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> But I didn't say the body of Christ was corrupt.
> I'll explain in laymen terms then you can compare that to the scriptures of Romans 8.
> 
> The old Covenant body was dying at the time Paul was preaching his ministry. ( Hebrews 8:13) That old Covenant body was corrupt ( Matthew23)...at the same time the New Covenant body was being resurrected out of the dying old, hence the birth pangs.
> The old Covenant was a physical fleshly realm, The New Covenant is a spiritual realm reality, now, but was just coming to Life in the first century.



I would still disagree with you. I've never heard of the old covenant being referred to as corrupt. I don't think you will find any scripture to back that up. In fact Paul calls the law good, and just and holy (Rom.7:12). Matt. 23 that you refer to isn't a condemnation on the old covenant but on the rulers who interpreted the old covenant.

The problem with the law and the old covenant wasn't that it was corrupt. The law is a picture of perfection. When anyone looks at the law compared to themselves, the corruption in themselves is revealed. The old covenant was perfect in it's purpose, which was to reveal sin(Rom.3:20).


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> I would still disagree with you. I've never heard of the old covenant being referred to as corrupt. I don't think you will find any scripture to back that up. In fact Paul calls the law good, and just and holy (Rom.7:12). Matt. 23 that you refer to isn't a condemnation on the old covenant but on the rulers who interpreted the old covenant.
> 
> The problem with the law and the old covenant wasn't that it was corrupt. The law is a picture of perfection. When anyone looks at the law compared to themselves, the corruption in themselves is revealed. The old covenant was perfect in it's purpose, which was to reveal sin(Rom.3:20).



I look at it this way. If a woman is cheating on her husband their marriage is corrupt. Not because of the husband and not because of the marriage contract.
 Also the two of them were one body.


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> I look at it this way. If a woman is cheating on her husband their marriage is corrupt. Not because of the husband and not because of the marriage contract.
> Also the two of them were one body.



I suppose we just have to disagree. The breaking of the covenant doesn't make the covenant corrupt. It's the sin that's corrupt. 

There is nowhere in scripture that speaks of the covenant becoming corrupt. As I've already said it functioned perfectly as it was designed to function.


----------



## hobbs27

hobbs27 said:


> The old Covenant body was dying at the time Paul was preaching his ministry. ( Hebrews 8:13) That old Covenant body was corrupt ( Matthew23)...at the same time the New Covenant body was being resurrected out of the dying old, hence the birth pangs.



RH, notice.. The (Body) of the old Covenant was corrupt. God was married to Jerusalem in Covenant. Jerusalem played the Harlot, when the Body of the Old Covenant shouted out ,Crucify Him..We have no King but Caeser! They played the Harlot with Rome . The Body was corrupt. The old Covenant was dying because of this ( Hebrews 8:13) and The New Covenant was experiencing birth pangs as it was rising up out of that death.


----------



## Israel

If audience and context are a matter in this, to what end would Paul be saying so much about a covenant in which the gentile Corinthians never had a part?


----------



## hobbs27

Israel said:


> If audience and context are a matter in this, to what end would Paul be saying so much about a covenant in which the gentile Corinthians never had a part?



If the resurrection of the dead ones and the wedding of the bride took place in the last days as scripture says...and they were in the last days as scripture says...then they played a very big part of the Old and new Covenants.

If Resurrection was not for them, then it would make me wonder why Paul spent so much time concerning them with it.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> If the resurrection of the dead ones and the wedding of the bride took place in the last days as scripture says...and they were in the last days as scripture says...then they played a very big part of the Old and new Covenants.
> 
> If Resurrection was not for them, then it would make me wonder why Paul spent so much time concerning them with it.



Resurrection was for them and its for us as well. We are still in the last days and will be until Jesus comes back.
This earth is not going to continue on forever.It's waxing old as a garment.There's coming a day when He will fold it up like a vesture.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Resurrection was for them and its for us as well. We are still in the last days and will be until Jesus comes back.
> This earth is not going to continue on forever.It's waxing old as a garment.There's coming a day when He will fold it up like a vesture.



There's no global destruction of this earth in the Bible..In fact that's contrary to God's word. Ephesians 3:21 unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.


----------



## Israel

I don't think I made myself clear in either post, I suppose.



Israel said:


> Is then, this when spoken, meaning the vile body (of humiliation) is the church?
> 
> Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.


 




> If audience and context are a matter in this, to what end would Paul be saying so much about a covenant in which the gentile Corinthians never had a part?



Since the Gentile Corinthians had never been under the first covenant (of Moses), but entered Christ, freely, nonetheless, why would Paul be referencing the  "vile body" to them of which they never had a part?
If they were never a "part" of what you seem to maintain as a reference of that covenant, what interest, or better, what care would they be expected to have for what they already knew had passed? They were not coming to Christ in any way but by the Spirit, and not law (by no means an implication the Law has power to impart life)...so to them...(only if audience and context seem a matter here) to what end would Paul be telling them about a vile body (of a covenant that now would mean nothing to them in the light of Christ)?


----------



## hobbs27

Israel, you must understand our differences in exegesis. If I understand you correctly the Cross implemented the New Covenant and the old was done.

I believe the New started when Christ started His ministry but the old did not end till 70ad. There were two covenants, one dying and one going through the birth pangs. 70 ad ended the old and consummated the new. The wedding took place at 70ad and the bride was the Remnant that came out of Israel along with these first century gentile Christians. That is why it was so important for Paul to explain to them the Covenants and the coming resurrection they were about to be a part of.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> There's no global destruction of this earth in the Bible..In fact that's contrary to God's word. Ephesians 3:21 unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.



Let's break that down using strongs:

"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages(generations),world(age,time period) without end(eternal).Amen.

He's describing what will be going on in heaven regarding His church(bride) for all eternity.It has nothing to do with the big ball of dirt we now live on.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Let's break that down using strongs:
> 
> "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages(generations),world(age,time period) without end(eternal).Amen.
> 
> He's describing what will be going on in heaven regarding His church(bride) for all eternity.It has nothing to do with the big ball of dirt we now live on.



While I agree with Strong's, I'll disagree with your interpretation of that.


----------



## marketgunner

Why would anybody want their old body throughout eternity?   Do you get to pick the age body?  What about those that died early, do they get the body they would have had?

Sound egotistical to choose a flesh and blood type body versus a spiritual existence


----------



## welderguy

marketgunner said:


> Why would anybody want their old body throughout eternity?   Do you get to pick the age body?  What about those that died early, do they get the body they would have had?
> 
> Sound egotistical to choose a flesh and blood type body versus a spiritual existence



It will be a resurrected,transformed,spiritual body fashioned like unto His(Jesus') glorified body.


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> There's no global destruction of this earth in the Bible..In fact that's contrary to God's word. Ephesians 3:21 unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.



That's shaky ground to place that statement on. I simply see it as saying world with God without end. Not necessarily this present earth without end. 

Leaving that for a moment what do you do with these scriptures to be able to hold to your no destruction of the earth view?

2 Peter 3:10-13King James Version (KJV)

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.



Revelation 21:1-3King James Version (KJV)

21 And I saw a "new heaven and a new earth": for the "first heaven and the first earth were passed away"; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> That's shaky ground to place that statement on. I simply see it as saying world with God without end. Not necessarily this present earth without end.
> 
> Leaving that for a moment what do you do with these scriptures to be able to hold to your no destruction of the earth view?
> 
> 2 Peter 3:10-13King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
> 
> 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
> 
> 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
> 
> 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> Revelation 21:1-3King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 21 And I saw a "new heaven and a new earth": for the "first heaven and the first earth were passed away"; and there was no more sea.
> 
> 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
> 
> 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.




2peter 3. Thanks for bringing this into the conversation. All we have to do is look into what Paul said of these " elements" in Galations.
4:3. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.

 What were these Israelites in bondage of? The law & the priesthood .

Look now at verse 9.
. 9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 

 The message was to not turn back to the Law...or to the weak and beggarly elements.

So what were the elements that burned with fervent heat. The Law and the priesthood..when? Yep 70ad.

Who was to be looking for a new heaven and earth? Yep, the original audience of the letter from Peter 
13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

 Heaven and earth in the old Covenant was the Temple and the Israelite economy.
 The New heaven and earth which has come down is the new Covenant.


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> Israel, you must understand our differences in exegesis. If I understand you correctly the Cross implemented the New Covenant and the old was done.
> 
> I believe the New started when Christ started His ministry but the old did not end till 70ad. There were two covenants, one dying and one going through the birth pangs. 70 ad ended the old and consummated the new. The wedding took place at 70ad and the bride was the Remnant that came out of Israel along with these first century gentile Christians. That is why it was so important for Paul to explain to them the Covenants and the coming resurrection they were about to be a part of.



yes, I believe you see my "exegesis" correctly.
Through the death of our Lord man entered into that covenant with God, and the resurrection (for me) signals God's full acceptance of that sacrifice, and the_ full _implementation of the "present" terms.
I see the "old" passed, there. The veil, torn.
If it is necessary to see the destruction of the temple additionally, I will not quarrel with that.


----------



## Artfuldodger

2 Peter 3:13
 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Where will this new earth with new heavens be? Maybe if we still have some sort of physical body, we'll need some sort of new earth to live on. A new earth that has new heavens(atmosphere?)


----------



## Israel

I, like many, consider often the Garden, what happened there, what took place, what takes place in us, what we have been granted to see and know where no man walked, but Jesus, and that only revealed to us by the Spirit.

While we all slept, unknowing in our uncaring to know, what one man bore, alone, between he and his God.
I am lured by power, for I have none of my own, but made strong by the weakness of a Man toward me, a man who has refused my slumber permission to capture me by his being awake and totally aware...all alive...to all.
While I slept he wrestled, while I dreamt of my own, he forsook all of his own...for me. His place, that peculiar place forsaken for my sake, of being the only begotten, precious beyond all measure to his Father, refusing instead, for my sake, to remain "an only child".
He could have kept it, without reproach before His Father, he could have kept it without failure, with his Father.


Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

He might just has well have asked, "Israel, but where would that leave you?"

Why, Lord, why the cross? Why the place where no man can see what is happening, no man can know, no man can explain, is indeed forbidden...and none can show? No man can say "look what I am doing for you?" "Look what I do for you?"

I am married. I sin. I sin in those places where I fail love. I sin secretly, inwardly, but clearly seen, I sin in all my "if she only knew what I do for her, how much I go through for her..." I sin in having this "thing" in me, at all. I sin in wanting her to see better, to know better, what I have done, what I am doing, what "I" go through... _"I" think_, _for her_. My love is no gift, but trap. I have made a sham of love. 

O, to be free. To love! To love, as I am loved. This great engine of pride that drives me, this great need to be acknowledged, that consumes me. To be appreciated...as I believe _I must be_.
Yes, at times "I" would have her be "different".

"Ahh, then you would kill her?" Comes the pointed question. In order for her to "not be" what she is, now, she would have to die, no...Son?" Yes, I kill her. And you all, at that "any point" in which my desire for you to be different than any of "you all" are...that I might remain...the same! I kill you! Oh, God what slaughter of which I am found guilty! I want to remain the son...these...must become...but not me, for I AM. Oh, God, help.
Me.

MERCY...

And  he does. I am forgiven the destroying of His creation.

Forgiven for playing the Harlot with the wrong "husband".
The wrong man.
I am the _wrong man._


All...wrong.
And there is only one place such a man might live. 
And see life.


I think I know why some actors say they never watch their own movies, cannot bear to see themselves on screen.
I think it's because, at least at one time, they did.


----------



## gemcgrew

A god that is learning, is not God at all.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> A god that is learning, is not God at all.



What about a God that regrets?

Genesis 6:6
The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> What about a God that regrets?
> 
> Genesis 6:6
> The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.



anthropopathy


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> anthropopathy



Image of God.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Image of God.



regret = anthropopathy

Image of God = 


>>>>>edit<<<<<<

we require anthropopathic imagery to understand God
God does not require theopathic imagery to understand us
if that's what your getting at.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> regret = anthropopathy
> 
> Image of God =
> 
> 
> >>>>>edit<<<<<<
> 
> we require anthropopathic imagery to understand God
> God does not require theopathic imagery to understand us
> if that's what your getting at.



To a certain point, yes. Such as hands of God or eyes of God. I'm not sure how far we can use this in describing God's attributes because we are made in his image.
What image is that if not physical? We know God is spiritual so there fore does that also include emotions? 
If we aren't exhibiting or mirroring God by showing love, anger, regret, hope, help, pity, pain, compassion, jealousy, etc., then when are we exhibiting God's image?
If emotions are human, then in what image of God are we?

How can an all knowing, all controlling God have emotions? I don't know but is the answer always, anthropopathy?


----------



## Israel

He who made the eye, does he not see?

We have been given all the organs of sense, and the gift of consciousness, even in its most limited state, as the means of informing us that reality/truth...is. How it is we are discovering in confirmations and negations, in affirmations and refusals.
What we experience of "trial and error" we can be assured has already been made plain to us of Jesus Christ through His testimony. Even in those things we consider "fails" the spirit is more than able to cause us to stand through that gift of grace we know as repentance. 
If, and when, a man is shown to be wrong in himself, the gift waits that restores eye to eye and face to face. One of the first indicators that a man is beginning to look away is the self assurance that he is right.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> How can an all knowing, all controlling God have emotions?


Immutability leaves no room for emotions. If God were to  have emotions, they would not be similar to ours. Nothing takes him by surprise and nothing moves him.


Artfuldodger said:


> I don't know but is the answer always, anthropopathy?


Not always. Sometimes the answer is anthropomorphism.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> Immutability leaves no room for emotions. If God were to  have emotions, they would not be similar to ours. Nothing takes him by surprise and nothing moves him.
> 
> Not always. Sometimes the answer is anthropomorphism.



Might it be that what we perceive of emotion is being purified?
As God is spirit, but also, if the scriptures are to be believed, also of soul:

Lo, My servant, I take hold on him, My chosen one -- My soul hath accepted, I have put My Spirit upon him, Judgment to nations he bringeth forth. Youngs (having been convinced it is usually the more accurate rendering)

And KJV:
Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my elect, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth justice to the Gentiles.

If (in us) the soul be the _seat_ of emotions (If), and we have come (been delivered) from that place of their reign into the Kingdom through Christ (through the Word of God working to sever soul from spirit that Spirit alone have preeminence), might it be there that emotions, brought to submission, might find their true expression?

I do not here submit that love is an emotion, but of it may be found the many things which present as emotion to us, and I am not unconvinced we experience of the Lord, as well.

Maybe what I am saying in short is "truth has a face"?


----------



## hobbs27

Isn't God a particular emotion?
Love?

Maybe it's not God that has no emotion, but some men? Some doctrines?


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> Immutability leaves no room for emotions. If God were to  have emotions, they would not be similar to ours. Nothing takes him by surprise and nothing moves him.
> 
> Not always. Sometimes the answer is anthropomorphism.



Not according to the scriptures. Jesus is many times moved by compassion, is angry, and even weeps.

In the OT we see God angry, pleased, laughing, and regretful.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Isn't God a particular emotion?
> Love?
> 
> Maybe it's not God that has no emotion, but some men? Some doctrines?



Mat 22:37  And he said to him, "You shall love (G25) the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
Mat 22:38  This is the great and first commandment.


Yes, many men create doctrine that confuses "agapao"
and "Phileo".



Strong's
redacted for clarity.

G25

Î±Ì“Î³Î±Ï€Î±Ì�Ï‰
agapaoÌ„
ag-ap-ah'-o

… Compare G5368.

G5368

Ï†Î¹Î»ÎµÌ�Ï‰
phileoÌ„
fil-eh'-o
From G5384; to be a friend to (fond of [an individual or an object]), that is, have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while G25 is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety: the two thus stand related very much as G2309 and G1014, or as G2372 and G3563 respectively; the former being chiefly of the heart and the latter of the head); specifically to kiss (as a mark of tenderness): - kiss, love.

G2309

Î¸ÎµÌ�Î»Ï‰, ÎµÌ“Î¸ÎµÌ�Î»Ï‰
theloÌ„    etheloÌ„ 
thel'-o, eth-el'-o
… to determine (as an active voice option from subjective impulse;

 whereas G1014 properly denotes rather a passive voice acquiescence in objective considerations), that is, choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); 

by implication to wish, that is, be inclined to (sometimes adverbially gladly); 

impersonally for the future tense, to be about to;

G1014

Î²Î¿Ï…Ì�Î»Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹
boulomai
boo'-lom-ahee
…to “will”, that is, (reflexively) be willing: - be disposed, minded, intend, list (be, of own) will (-ing)… 

G2372

Î¸Ï…Î¼Î¿Ì�Ï‚
thumos
thoo-mos'
… passion (as if breathing hard): - fierceness, indignation, wrath…
G3563

Î½Î¿Ï…Í‚Ï‚
nous
nooce
… the intellect, that is, mind (divine or human; in thought, feeling, or will); 
by implication meaning: - mind, understanding…


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> Not according to the scriptures. Jesus is many times moved by compassion, is angry, and even weeps.


Proves that he took upon himself a human nature. His divine nature did not experience emotions, just as it did not experience hunger.


RH Clark said:


> In the OT we see God angry, pleased, laughing, and regretful.


Anthropopathy


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> Isn't God a particular emotion?
> Love?
> 
> Maybe it's not God that has no emotion, but some men? Some doctrines?


Love, in the Bible, is a volition. It is not an emotion.


----------



## hobbs27

gemcgrew said:


> Love, in the Bible, is a volition. It is not an emotion.



1John 4:8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.


----------



## hummerpoo

gemcgrew said:


> Love, in the Bible, is a volition. It is not an emotion.



"Love, in the Bible, is agape.  It is not philia."

I wonder ... Did that high school math teacher who insisted "show your work" know how much time, and effort, he would cost me over the next 50+ yrs.?

I'm still teachable, Gem.  Just don't give up on me, o.k.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> 1John 4:8He that loveth (agapao) not knoweth not God; for God is love (agape) .


----------



## hobbs27

Hummerpoo...I understand Agape to be the highest form of love in the Bible. I see you're trying to make a point, but it must be going over my head this Monday ,sorry.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Hummerpoo...I understand Agape to be the highest form of love in the Bible. I see you're trying to make a point, but it must be going over my head this Monday ,sorry.



To describe God's love as mere emotion is wrong (one might say blaspheme, but that would assume perfect knowledge).


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> Proves that he took upon himself a human nature. His divine nature did not experience emotions, just as it did not experience hunger.
> 
> Anthropopathy



I'm not buying it. Without love God would never have taken on a human nature. Besides that, you can't separate the Father and Son as if the Son hasn't always been in existence.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> To describe God's love as mere emotion is wrong (one might say blaspheme, but that would assume perfect knowledge).



I'm under the impression that not even Agape describes God's love for us. I often think of 1 John 3 where John struggled to define it, and just said, " what manner of love "

Jesus said there is no greater love than laying down your life for another. 

What then is love if not an emotion..not saying a mere emotion, but an emotion so great that we can't even understand what manner of?


----------



## Artfuldodger

What is the name of God's wrath?


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Isn't God a particular emotion?Love?
> 
> Maybe it's not God that has no emotion, but some men? Some doctrines?





hobbs27 said:


> Hummerpoo...I understand Agape to be the highest form of love in the Bible. I see you're trying to make a point, but it must be going over my head this Monday ,sorry.





hobbs27 said:


> I'm under the impression that not even Agape describes God's love for us. I often think of 1 John 3 where John struggled to define it, and just said, Behold, " what manner of love " the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
> 
> 
> Jesus said there is no greater love than laying down your life for another.
> 
> What then is love if not an emotion..not saying a mere emotion, but an emotion so great that we can't even understand what manner of?



Your playing games, have fun.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> I'm not buying it.


You are not even comprehending.

And that led you to say this ↓↓↓


RH Clark said:


> Without love God would never have taken on a human nature. Besides that, you can't separate the Father and Son as if the Son hasn't always been in existence.


Which I agree with.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Your playing games, have fun.



Honestly, I'm not. I simply don't understand how God loves us, but His love is not an emotion. How any love is not an emotion is beyond me.

 Anyone want to explain?


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> Honestly, I'm not. I simply don't understand how God loves us, but His love is not an emotion. How any love is not an emotion is beyond me.
> 
> Anyone want to explain?


I am about to leave for work. I am off tomorrow and may have more time to respond.

You may want to start with the definition of "emotion". Then compare that to what God reveals about himself in the Bible.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> You are not even comprehending.
> 
> And that led you to say this ↓↓↓
> 
> Which I agree with.



OK then, maybe I'm not but you said,"Immutability leaves no room for emotions. If God were to have emotions, they would not be similar to ours. Nothing takes him by surprise and nothing moves him."

Quote:

I don't think anything takes God by surprise but I certainly think he is moved by many things. God has certainly changed his mind according to scriptures.


----------



## Israel

From Webster's online.. 


Simple Definition of emotion
: a strong feeling (such as love, anger, joy, hate, or fear)


Full Definition of emotion
1
a obsolete :  disturbance
b :  excitement
2
a :  the affective aspect of consciousness :  feeling
b :  a state of feeling
c :  a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body
See emotion defined for


----------



## Bama4me

hobbs27 said:


> Honestly, I'm not. I simply don't understand how God loves us, but His love is not an emotion. How any love is not an emotion is beyond me.
> 
> Anyone want to explain?



Of the four types of love in the Greek language, the one mostly based upon emotion is "eros".  We would likely call it "infatuation" today.  The second closest would be "storge"... which was a love people developed when they were the recipients of blessings (i.e. children or subjects under a benevolent dictator).

The third closest would be "phileo"... a love that is based upon mutual care and concern.  "Phileo" says "I care for you because you care for me".  Notice there's more of a decision that is being made in this type of "love".

"Agape", the love that most often characterizes the love God has for people, is the one that is based least on strict emotion.  "Agape" love is a love of choice - "I choose to pursue YOUR best interest rather than mine."  It's highly interesting to me that Jesus said "agapao" your enemies in Matthew 5:44.  Why?  Likely because "agapao" is based primarily upon choice - not emotion.  None of us would be strong enough to make our emotions care for those who would do us harm.

"Agape" love is thus seen in action towards others - and less in emotion in our hearts.  Just as a side note to this discussion, this is one reason why God chose to have the NT written in Greek - we call all four of these terms "love" and give the impression they're the exact same thing.


----------



## hobbs27

Thanks for the info guys. I've never questioned Gods love so this will take me a while to get my mind set to understand this in a critical manner.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> OK then, maybe I'm not but you said,"Immutability leaves no room for emotions. If God were to have emotions, they would not be similar to ours. Nothing takes him by surprise and nothing moves him."
> 
> Quote:
> 
> I don't think anything takes God by surprise but I certainly think he is moved by many things. God has certainly changed his mind according to scriptures.


Did he change for the better or for the worse? Any change from perfection would be to imperfection.

"For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

"The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

"But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth."


----------



## Israel

Mercy, huh? Who can wrap their minds around it? Maybe that's why it keeps coming back to some men, it's where their reason is perfectly contradicted.
Take that quote above, I have seen it, used it, I guess, in whatever form I know of belief, believed it.



> "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."



What is subject, object, implied, inferred? (and whatever other functions of sentence structure, all of the which I have long since forgotten)

Can you forget for a moment this is another of Israel's silly posts prepared for the eyes to glaze over? Do you have that much faith?
Do you see and understand what I obviously do not? Mercy?

"For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

Am I, are we, the "you" there (in that ye)? If so, the the Lord is talking...to us. 


And. 

What of that "consumed"? Is the speaker referring to His exercise...or anothers? 

If it be His, (as I have always believed, I believe) then is He (the speaker) not saying, "I change not, this is why you are not burnt up  (or should be/ought to be; as inferred from the statement), as is manifestly deserved.

Manifest...as to whom?
If it be of the Lord, (this be clearly manifest) then is it not saying,
I don't change, (and because of this) I don't do what is manifestly "called for" to us both (or is it so, really to us....do we realize how much we rightly deserve being obliterated?) 

And if it be manifest to the Lord...this "right thing" (of deserved obliteration)...how will he then not do...what is manifestly "right"?

How does One exist in the place of being "right" about all things, while telling us (hey look, between us, you and I both know [or ought to know] you got no "right" to exist)

Now, if the speaker left it at that, with nothing beyond for us to refer, what would a man think? What could he think? "gee, thanks for telling me that, you big hearted oaf...but that's not really a very merciful statement...cause all I see is someone like....Israel"


Gonna be so big hearted and all, gonna tell someone "I could and should...do something terrible to you...but I won't...cause I am sooooo nice". Yeah, thanks for that!

(is this not the nub...that becomes so great a stone of stumbling in so many unbelievers arguments? "your God is gonna wipe out, has wiped out so many just because they don't go along with his grandiose image of himself as some sort of "nice guy"?)

As in "oh, look at me, look at me...I am so good I don't do to you what we should both agree you deserve!" (Great...your big claim to fame is telling me how rotten I am, but that you aren't...wow...gee, like..._not everyone_ else on Earth...doesn't think the same and act the same...way)

And yet. What cannot be had by reasoning...has come. In a man. Not just "any" man...but a man to show...what mercy is, and not just talk about it (like that Israel guy). And no, he is not, (Israel) as he portrays himself and thinks others might "buy it"...a big hearted oaf, he is mean spirited, recollector of all insults ever done him (real or imagined), and pats himself on the back for (as he imagines) for not breathing out fire in the few instances he "knows" everyone else deserves it.

"Look, he bites his tongue...ain't that just soooo grand of him!"

But, Jesus...ahhh, he didn't bite his tongue, he threw his whole body into the jaws of death, he threw all of himself right into it...the great "biting"...without a peep of "I am only doing this for you..." Without a peep of "look at me, look at me, see! what a wonderful thing I do...!" (for you miscreants!...who really don't deserve it!)
Yep. He sure is everything..."I am not".

Mercy. 
It has provoked me. I have seen what it looks like, I am sure we all have, but I can't figure it out.
If I "try" to show it...I crash and burn every time. If I try and "put myself" in the place where I don't have to feel like I don't deserve it...if I try and escape to a place where I am "good"...and not having to receive what is for malefactors...I prove myself before all...what a malefactor I truly am!

It undoes me...every time. I can never get around it! Mercy is always specifically undeserved, for if it be deserved...it cannot be....mercy.

But I am, we are...able to look at it. And, maybe something happens to us when we look?


----------



## welderguy

Good stuff brother Israel.
I thank God for that.
His compassions are new every morning.Great is His faithfulness.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> Did he change for the better or for the worse? Any change from perfection would be to imperfection.
> 
> "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."
> 
> "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
> 
> "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."
> 
> "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
> 
> "But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth."



So the quotes you listed are to prove that God doesn't change his mind and that I am obviously wrong? What you have listed speaks to the nature of God which does not change. God is always merciful and God does not do evil. In those ways God does not change.

What about Hezekiah turning his face to the wall and the Lord granting him longer life?

What about when God was going to destroy all of Israel and start a new race just from Moses but Moses convinced him otherwise?

What about the bargaining that Abraham did with the Lord concerning Sodom and Gomorrah?

And here are a few scriptures for you too.
Amos 7:3 
The LORD changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD.


Jonah 3:10 
When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.


Jeremiah 18:8 
if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. 


2 Samuel 24:16 
When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, "It is enough! Now relax your hand!" And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. 



Jeremiah 18:10 
if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> So the quotes you listed are to prove that God doesn't change his mind and that I am obviously wrong? What you have listed speaks to the nature of God which does not change. God is always merciful and God does not do evil. In those ways God does not change.


In no way does God change. God is not a man. He is perfect in every way, so any change in him would be to the worse, to imperfection.


RH Clark said:


> What about Hezekiah turning his face to the wall and the Lord granting him longer life?


Hezekiah is not self-existing. His existence is dependent on the power and will of God. In God, Hezekiah lives and moves and has his being. Hezekiah had no power of his own to turn his face to the wall, to pray. God compelled Hezekiah to turn his face to the wall and pray.

It is by God's will and power that Isaiah was sent to Hezekiah, that Hezekiah was compelled to pray and that there was even a wall there.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> In no way does God change. God is not a man. He is perfect in every way, so any change in him would be to the worse, to imperfection.
> 
> Hezekiah is not self-existing. His existence is dependent on the power and will of God. In God, Hezekiah lives and moves and has his being. Hezekiah had no power of his own to turn his face to the wall, to pray. God compelled Hezekiah to turn his face to the wall and pray.
> 
> It is by God's will and power that Isaiah was sent to Hezekiah, that Hezekiah was compelled to pray and that there was even a wall there.






gemcgrew said:


> In no way does God change. God is not a man. He is perfect in every way, so any change in him would be to the worse, to imperfection.
> 
> So you say, but the Bible clearly says differently. It's right there in black and white that God does change his mind. Granted, they all seem to be about God changing his mind to show mercy. Seems reasonable though since the Bible also says God gets angry.


----------



## hobbs27

Sometimes its a struggle.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> So you say, but the Bible clearly says differently. It's right there in black and white that God does change his mind.


It would be crystal clear to me, if I could believe that God is not perfect in every way.


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> Sometimes its a struggle.


Sometimes it is a stupid, mindless picture.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> It would be crystal clear to me, if I could believe that God is not perfect in every way.



I believe He's perfect in every way too but I don't think that precludes him being able to change his mind and show mercy.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> I believe He's perfect in every way too but I don't think that precludes him being able to change his mind and show mercy.


Again, does he change for the better or worse? Does he move from a superior to inferior, or inferior to superior position within his mind?

Is he developing? Learning?

Of course not.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Genesis 6:6
The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

If that is an example of anthropomorphism, what does it mean? If God didn't regret making man, then what is this verse telling us? 

That God made man, looked ahead, and knew this was going to happen. Therefore God in no way could regret. This verse used regret because it's the only word we as humans could understand how God was feeling. Well not feeling because God isn't human. God can't feel pain or anger, those are human traits. They are only used as anthropomorphism as a way to help us understand God's nonhuman attributes.
OK then, what is this verse implying?

If we were made in God's image, why give us emotions? Why give us a mind and body? Why didn't God just create us as spirits only. If that is God's only attribute that we have as his image.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Genesis 6:7
So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created--and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground--for I regret that I have made them."

God had to know this was going to happen. Does he wear blinders?
If not then how could he say he was sorry he made man? He knew before hand he was going to destroy all of his creation but what was on the Ark. 
He needed this Ark as a shadow or type of New Testament salvation. It was his plan all along. I can see this so what was Genesis 6:6 & 7 trying to convey? 
Why was it ever mentioned that God regretted making man when we know it isn't true?


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> Again, does he change for the better or worse? Does he move from a superior to inferior, or inferior to superior position within his mind?
> 
> Is he developing? Learning?
> 
> Of course not.



Let me pose this to you, perhaps that is not the question. What if it isn't a question of either going from an inferior position to a superior one, or even from a superior position to an inferior one. Perhaps it is a case of always moving to a superior or more correct position as circumstances change?

Think about free will for a moment. The way in which you are posing the superiority of God seems to leave him without a free will. After all isn't free will the ability to choose, and how can you have the ability to choose if it's impossible to change your mind?

What if God wanting man to be like himself, in his own image and likeness, gave to man this wonderful ability called free will? What if it were all necessary just so we could really be in God's image and be like God as much as possible? What if free will isn't so much a human characteristic, but a God characteristic which is granted to us by him.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Genesis 6:6





Artfuldodger said:


> Genesis 6:7



Art, look up the other six times that the same Hebrew word, that is bothering you, is used in Genesis.  That should entice you to look a another dozen, or two dozen, in other places.  You will have a better picture of what is going on.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> Genesis 6:7
> So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created--and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground--for I regret that I have made them."
> 
> God had to know this was going to happen. Does he wear blinders?
> If not then how could he say he was sorry he made man? He knew before hand he was going to destroy all of his creation but what was on the Ark.
> He needed this Ark as a shadow or type of New Testament salvation. It was his plan all along. I can see this so what was Genesis 6:6 & 7 trying to convey?
> Why was it ever mentioned that God regretted making man when we know it isn't true?



I believe it is true. Think about it in a different way. I am a parent. Even before my children were born, before I even decided to create children, I knew they would suffer pain and loss in this world. I still chose to have children. I am happy when they are happy, and sad when they are sad. There have even been some times I ,for just a moment, wished I never had children.

Perhaps God knew he would regret creating man at some time. I'm sure he also knew the joy man would bring him. Perhaps he chose to endure the pain and regret to experience the joy. Didn't Jesus endure the suffering of the cross for the joy set before him?


----------



## welderguy

My opinion is this: I think God does have emotions.But they are 1)consistent,based on His imutability,2)righteous,based on His perfect holiness,and 3)just,based on His sovereignty.

Quick clarification- His imutability doesn't mean He can't change something about His creation.It means He Himself doesn't change from who He is.

It was said of David,he was a man after God's own heart.(seat of emotion)

Then there's verses like:
"God is angry with the wicked every day."

and

"I know the thoughts I think towards you,thoughts of peace and not of evil,to give you an expected end."

It's very hard to describe God's ways because they are so much higher than our ways.


----------



## hummerpoo

welderguy said:


> "I know the thoughts I think towards you,thoughts of peace and not of evil,to give you an expected end."
> 
> It's very hard to describe God's ways because they are so much higher than our ways.



When God does whatever He does that we call thinking, it results in what we call reality.

"as the Heavens are above the earth" is just something small enough for us to visualize.


----------



## welderguy

hummerpoo said:


> When God does whatever He does that we call thinking, it results in what we call reality.
> 
> "as the Heavens are above the earth" is just something small enough for us to conceive.



I agree Hummer.
And He's not wishy washy with His emotions as we are either,I should add.


----------



## Israel

What if, in order that God, who does not change...desired to impart to man the thing man needed most to grow...(his original purpose to be "like him" in image and likeness), that without its receiving...man never could...but only remain "of clay"?

Might God, who does all things "well" assume, before man, a position that could do this? (One could call this "grace"). (As I used to skate very sloooowly so my daughter could keep up...and learn to skate...my daughter surely perceived me as a slow skater, no doubt...as others whizzed past...and who hasn't talked "babytalk" to their infants? To relate?)

It wasn't God who was "repenting" so to speak, but allowing himself to be seen so...that man might? Can this be? Such mercy?
The all perfect, all knowing One...allowing for himself to be seen in such a way...to an end planned?

Therefore he hath concluded them all in unbelief/disobedience that he might have mercy upon all?

And of Jesus...even..."Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience, through the things that he suffered?"

Now, none of us would attribute disobedience to Jesus, and faith tells us therefore, there must be a something "else" about this.

A growth in obedience. Given for us to understand as new creatures. A 4 year old is not given car keys. But a four year old may be given a play car. Jesus, ever obedient, was ready to dispute/speak at 12 with the temple elders. But, it was not "his time", and so obediently, he went home with his parents...and of this obedience, with no change in nature, he abided...until. Until such time as he received the "now go". And in the going, there were times men would have laid hands on him...but he walked right past them through them, for...yet...it was not "his time". But when it was "his time"...and he knew it, knew he was now ready (by agreement in and with his Father)...he went out to meet those (with no intent of walking past them as previously) Saying..."whom do you seek?"

Is there not a lesson for us, here? We don't have to know the pain of disobedience...we are called to grow, as each place comes with its own instruction...do this...now. And then...do this...now. And as we grow, the path gets clearer by revelation received in each understanding of what obedience now means. "Could" Jesus have taken on the sins of the world at 12? It's not for me to surmise...but because he didn't, and because he showed obedience there...to humbly submit to his earthly parents (by the will of God)...we know that when ready...he could face Pilate, the chief priests...and do what he was called to do.

I ask this...in all humility, for I dare not be seen as one finding fault in a brother...especially as Paul. But, was Paul, when let down in a basket...the same man we later see saying, I am ready to not only suffer, but die (after Agabus' demonstration)? Yes, he is, of nature the same...but...of a something else...is different. 

If we, might we...learn, that grace is always an exercise not understood...till apprehended by growth in the same? God sees our stumbling attempts...but as a good Father, on his knees to us (though the world sees us as perhaps silly children) God sees a babe seeking it's best to make his way to Him. We stumble, we fall, we crash into things. But God knows what is going on. Others...never can, if only beholding in natural eyes.
And woe to the man who who seeks to play a trick by suddenly moving an obstacle, to make that baby intentionally fall.
And that too, becomes a lesson to that babe..."my daddy does not like when men try and get between us..."


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> Let me pose this to you, perhaps that is not the question. What if it isn't a question of either going from an inferior position to a superior one, or even from a superior position to an inferior one. Perhaps it is a case of always moving to a superior or more correct position as circumstances change?


You are describing imperfection. I reject that.

God is perfect in every way. There is no before and after with God. God causes change. Changes do not cause God.


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> Let me pose this to you, perhaps that is not the question. What if it isn't a question of either going from an inferior position to a superior one, or even from a superior position to an inferior one.



Exactly. To change positions does not mean one position is superior and another is inferior. The picture I provided above of a man struggling to fit God in a box known as theology is a good example of how systems of belief attempt to simplify an Almighty God.

 He's too great to fit in any of our systems of belief, He's too great for any of our denominations. He does love, He does show mercy.


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> Exactly. To change positions does not mean one position is superior and another is inferior. The picture I provided above of a man struggling to fit God in a box known as theology is a good example of how systems of belief attempt to simplify an Almighty God.
> 
> He's too great to fit in any of our systems of belief, He's too great for any of our denominations. He does love, He does show mercy.



Thank you hobbs. I may not be able to understand how God can be perfect and still have many of the same emotions I have, but that's because my parameters of understanding are just too narrow. When the Bible says it, I will just take it on faith and ask God to help me to understand. A perfect example is the trinity. I don't completely understand how the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit can be separate yet the same, but I simply accept it by faith for now.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Exactly. To change positions does not mean one position is superior and another is inferior. The picture I provided above of a man struggling to fit God in a box known as theology is a good example of how systems of belief attempt to simplify an Almighty God.
> 
> He's too great to fit in any of our systems of belief, He's too great for any of our denominations. He does love, He does show mercy.



That statement should require an accompanying "floor plan" of your box.


----------



## hummerpoo

I once heard J. Vernon McGee, one of the better old time radio preachers, say "election in clearly in the Bible, but it should not be taught because nobody can understand it".  I ask the radio why the Trinity didn't fit in that same box.  The answer, of coarse, is that the teacher does not give up his personal power to teach the Trinity.


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> A perfect example is the trinity. I don't completely understand how the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit can be separate yet the same, but I simply accept it by faith for now.



In the Scriptures, we are told that a husband and wife will "become one"... yet, none of us are confused about it.  In the Scriptures, the Godhead is called "one"... yet we read that all three have distinct personalities.

The concept of "one" speaks of unity - in purpose, motive, and many characteristics.  To say "God the Father hates sin is the same as saying "Jesus or the Spirit hates sin."  To say "God the Father wants everyone to be saved" is the same thing as saying "Jesus or the Spirit wants everyone to be saved."  To say "God the Father is sinless" is to say "Jesus and the Spirit is sinless".

With those shared characteristics, they obviously differ in the roles they undertake.  An example is when Jesus came to earth.  It was clearly the Father's will that Christ be the One to die for man's sins and Scripture clearly reveals that Jesus was submissive to His Father.  Though in essence He is every bit the "equal" of the Father (Philippians 2:5ff), it is clear that He accepted a subservient role to the Father.  According to John 15:26, when Jesus returned to heaven, He would send the Spirit - and 16:13 indicates He would be speaking the things He would hear (evidently from Jesus).  Thus, the Spirit accepted a subservient role to Christ - and the things He did on earth were in keeping with Jesus' will.

Obviously, there are some things that we might not grasp about God, but to understand how the three personalities exist and operate is revealed pretty well in Scripture.


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> In the Scriptures, we are told that a husband and wife will "become one"... yet, none of us are confused about it.  In the Scriptures, the Godhead is called "one"... yet we read that all three have distinct personalities.
> 
> The concept of "one" speaks of unity - in purpose, motive, and many characteristics.  To say "God the Father hates sin is the same as saying "Jesus or the Spirit hates sin."  To say "God the Father wants everyone to be saved" is the same thing as saying "Jesus or the Spirit wants everyone to be saved."  To say "God the Father is sinless" is to say "Jesus and the Spirit is sinless".
> 
> With those shared characteristics, they obviously differ in the roles they undertake.  An example is when Jesus came to earth.  It was clearly the Father's will that Christ be the One to die for man's sins and Scripture clearly reveals that Jesus was submissive to His Father.  Though in essence He is every bit the "equal" of the Father (Philippians 2:5ff), it is clear that He accepted a subservient role to the Father.  According to John 15:26, when Jesus returned to heaven, He would send the Spirit - and 16:13 indicates He would be speaking the things He would hear (evidently from Jesus).  Thus, the Spirit accepted a subservient role to Christ - and the things He did on earth were in keeping with Jesus' will.
> 
> Obviously, there are some things that we might not grasp about God, but to understand how the three personalities exist and operate is revealed pretty well in Scripture.



I agree with all you are saying. My point was rather that I don't necessarily have to know how to build a refrigerator to accept that they exist and use one. Some things about God I can just accept because he says so in his word.

I accept that God has emotions and changes his mind because the scripture says so. It doesn't have to fit in my box of how God must be.


----------



## hummerpoo

Q:  How is believing that God does not change His mind different than believing that God does not have hands.

A:  The former is closer than the latter to believing that The Creating Will is sovereign over the created will.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> Q:  How is believing that God does not change His mind different than believing that God does not have hands.
> 
> A:  The former is closer than the latter to believing that The Creating Will is sovereign over the created will.



Is there not sufficient witness in scripture and in the faith that God  hears the prayers of people regards the extent of His wrath? and that some modification is made?


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> Is there not sufficient witness in scripture and in the faith that God  hears the prayers of people regards the extent of His wrath? and that some modification is made?



Yes, when that of which you speak is examined closely, the modification is found to be in the man, not in God.  Underlying that modification of the man is found God's eternal purpose revealed in the man.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> Yes, when that of which you speak is examined closely, the modification is found to be in the man, not in God.  Underlying that modification of the man is found God's eternal purpose revealed in the man.



Interesting. So it was  Adam modified  that augured in Eve.
And a prophets pleading for mercy that made mercy hard by. God indifferent, north or south, to the way it went?


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> Interesting. So it was  Adam modified  that augured in Eve.
> And a prophets pleading for mercy that made mercy hard by. God indifferent, north or south, to the way it went?



I'm really sorry Gordo, I simply don't understand your question.  [Hey...question...I see your ? is working (probably a long time ago; you know how slow I am to pick up on stuff).  I was wishing that I could give you mine, I always forget to use it anyway.]  I'm out-of-pocket for a little bit.  I sort of get the idea of the last two sentences but "hard by" must be an idiom I'm not familiar with.  I don't know what modification of Adam auguring to Eve your referring to, relative to prayer.


----------



## Israel

gordon 2 said:


> Interesting. So it was  Adam modified  that augured in Eve.
> And a prophets pleading for mercy that made mercy hard by. God indifferent, north or south, to the way it went?



LOL..."hardly". Jonah found out about mercy from a worm...or at least a little bit more about it than he cared to know...by a worm...created.

In my economy mercy is without reason. In fact, in my economy...all my reason argues against it. Mercy is the one thing I cannot find reason for except in Jesus Christ...and not because I fully I understand Him at all, but only because of what I do understand of Him cannot deny it is the only place I have ever seen it. And beyond all my understanding...it is real.
And I also cannot deny in my refusing to acknowledge it when the Spirit has directed, I have met tormenters. (oh....so that was you! King. Lord, Master...I thought it was "mine" to show or not...)
But, that was mercy too. The "keeping" of a man in a place where he might learn of time to repent.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> LOL..."hardly". Jonah found out about mercy from a worm...or at least a little bit more about it than he cared to know...by a worm...created.
> 
> In my economy mercy is without reason. In fact, in my economy...all my reason argues against it. Mercy is the one thing I cannot find reason for except in Jesus Christ...and not because I fully I understand Him at all, but only because of what I do understand of Him cannot deny it is the only place I have ever seen it. And beyond all my understanding...it is real.
> And I also cannot deny in my refusing to acknowledge it when the Spirit has directed, I have met tormenters. (oh....so that was you! King. Lord, Master...I thought it was "mine" to show or not...)
> But, that was mercy too. The "keeping" of a man in a place where he might learn of time to repent.


Mercy compels me to find delight in our failure to describe it. It just doesn't fit, yet it is the reason.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> I'm really sorry Gordo, I simply don't understand your question.  [Hey...question...I see your ? is working (probably a long time ago; you know how slow I am to pick up on stuff).  I was wishing that I could give you mine, I always forget to use it anyway.]  I'm out-of-pocket for a little bit.  I sort of get the idea of the last two sentences but "hard by" must be an idiom I'm not familiar with.  I don't know what modification of Adam auguring to Eve your referring to, relative to prayer.



You strike me as a person to reason from the conventions and shapes in sentences--- unfortunately my mind is not formed in this way. I say unfortunately because it is my understanding that theological reasoning is a wholesome reign on the poetic excesses that do occur in the visions of faith. ( the above two sentences might be the example.)

 The point I was trying to make is that God changed His mind on the composition of man for His good reason(s) when he added Eve to the makeup. And on the contrary to your stated view, my Lord changed His mind on a form that which was good, to this same made better.


----------



## gordon 2

A .....new tread on mercy would be a delight....?


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> I agree with all you are saying. My point was rather that I don't necessarily have to know how to build a refrigerator to accept that they exist and use one. Some things about God I can just accept because he says so in his word.



I'd thought you said you didn't understand how the three persons in the Godhead could be separate but the same... sounds like you do understand it.


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> You strike me as a person to reason from the conventions and shapes in sentences--- unfortunately my mind is not formed in this way. I say unfortunately because it is my understanding that theological reasoning is a wholesome reign on the poetic excesses that do occur in the visions of faith. ( the above two sentences might be the example.)
> 
> The point I was trying to make is that God changed His mind on the composition of man for His good reason(s) when he added Eve to the makeup. And on the contrary to your stated view, my Lord changed His mind on a form that which was good, to this same made better.



From which I would conclude that your view of God resembles a spiritualized man, who, like man, builds upon his previous ideas, experiences, successes, and failures; building toward perfection.  We must then ask, "When does He get there; perfection?"  That would require that He be temporal, right?  When does He become God?


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> I'd thought you said you didn't understand how the three persons in the Godhead could be separate but the same... sounds like you do understand it.



I understand in such a way as that referenced, yet to truly understand, well I doubt that is even possible here and now.


Here's a little example, if you will, that shows more depth than most of us ever think about. When ministers lay on hands, we are always careful to explain that it isn't us who does the healing or the blessing, but we are only obeying the scriptures and the rest is up to God. Jesus however never spoke in such a manner when laying on hands or healing in whatever manner. Jesus did say " It is the Father in me who does the works" many times, yet Jesus never separated himself from the Father in his words or deeds. The same Jesus who would say that it was the Father who does the works, would also say " I will come and heal him."

Now scripture tells us that those who are born again are one with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, yet we see ourselves as separate and would never tell anyone that we would come and heal someone as Jesus did. Just think about it.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> From which I would conclude that your view of God resembles a spiritualized man, who, like man, builds upon his previous ideas, experiences, successes, and failures; building toward perfection.  We must then ask, "When does He get there; perfection?"  That would require that He be temporal, right?  When does He become God?



In the beginning the Word was, and with God, and was God. To all beings He was life.

My perfection is not to be as Him in essence but rather mine a perfection to be in the way  of the meeting--of Him who was ever. Therefore His perfection in totallity is not mine, nor will it ever be, but as he teaches and sits with sinner, this perfection His, He hopes on me and His Kingdom come on earth. His is not one way to all,His patiences seeming to change with needs.

It seems to me that for man's free will in all the differing kingdoms of wrath, God does minister with leeway--wit. Jonah.

God's perfection in essence cannot be my perception of Him, but His perception on man  in relation to all His creation is His perfection to me. It is in this his ministry to man that I might note Him a mere man, and for this I appologize. Yet as I strive to  hear and see with the senses of faith, I recall that He heard as a man to the Jews and Gentiles and also to the Hebrews in Egype as the Father in Heaven.


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> In the beginning the Word was, and with God, and was God. To all beings He was life.
> 
> My perfection is not to be as Him in essence but rather mine a perfection to be in the way  of the meeting--of Him who was ever. Therefore His perfection in totallity is not mine, nor will it ever be, but as he teaches and sits with sinner, this perfection His, He hopes on me and His Kingdom come on earth. His is not one way to all,His patiences seeming to change with needs.
> 
> It seems to me that for man's free will in all the differing kingdoms of wrath, God does minister with leeway--wit. Jonah.



Did you respond to my statement, is there a connection of yours to mine?  If so please point it out to me.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> Did you respond to my statement, is there a connection of yours to mine?  If so please point it out to me.



see addition to original post.


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> Here's a little example, if you will, that shows more depth than most of us ever think about. When ministers lay on hands, we are always careful to explain that it isn't us who does the healing or the blessing, but we are only obeying the scriptures and the rest is up to God. Jesus however never spoke in such a manner when laying on hands or healing in whatever manner. Jesus did say " It is the Father in me who does the works" many times, yet Jesus never separated himself from the Father in his words or deeds. The same Jesus who would say that it was the Father who does the works, would also say " I will come and heal him."
> 
> Now scripture tells us that those who are born again are one with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, yet we see ourselves as separate and would never tell anyone that we would come and heal someone as Jesus did. Just think about it.



Seems to me the bigger issue you're struggling to grasp is how the incarnation affected Jesus' relationship with both the Father and the Spirit.  THAT, in my opinion, is another topic altogether. 

The concept of "one" refers to being united, not necessarily that all characteristics are shared between people.  God says a husband and wife should be "one", but that doesn't mean that we share all characteristics.  Deity has to ability to heal people - I do not.  However, that doesn't mean I can't be united with them in goals, purpose, etc.

Not trying to derail the original thread... guess my point is to simply say that mankind seems to engage in a perpetual pursuit of seeking to understand God from every rational view, even though Isaiah 55:8 clearly says it's impossible.


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> Seems to me the bigger issue you're struggling to grasp is how the incarnation affected Jesus' relationship with both the Father and the Spirit.  THAT, in my opinion, is another topic altogether.
> 
> The concept of "one" refers to being united, not necessarily that all characteristics are shared between people.  God says a husband and wife should be "one", but that doesn't mean that we share all characteristics.  Deity has to ability to heal people - I do not.  However, that doesn't mean I can't be united with them in goals, purpose, etc.
> 
> Not trying to derail the original thread... guess my point is to simply say that mankind seems to engage in a perpetual pursuit of seeking to understand God from every rational view, even though Isaiah 55:8 clearly says it's impossible.



Again, my point is rather that I may understand to a degree but still not fully understand.

Concerning Isaiah 55:8, I do agree that we only see now darkly as through a glass, waiting to see clearly face to face. I do not think that is the main point of Isaiah 55.

In verse 7 God is saying to forsake wicked ways and return to the ways of the Lord. Then in verses 7,8, and 9 God is saying how much higher his ways are but he doesn't leave it at that. In verses 10 and 11 God is saying how he sent his word and how it will prosper for the purpose in which he sent it. To me, taken as a whole, God isn't saying his ways and thinking are higher than mine so much as he is saying that he knows best and he sent his word to show us how to know better also.

It's not just "I'm smarter than you." It is "I'm smarter than you, so listen to my word and return to my way of thinking." 

As for derailing the thread, I think we are way beyond that at this point anyway.LOL


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> mercy compels me to find delight in our failure to describe it. It just doesn't fit, yet it is the reason.


amen!


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> Again, my point is rather that I may understand to a degree but still not fully understand.


Any way it goes, God is telling us that some things will be beyond our ability to grasp.  But here's the thing... all our understanding on any topic is based upon the Scriptures.  I'm sure it's safe to assume that God has not revealed all things to us in His word, so can we ever come to know we "fully understand" any subject?

I do believe it's possible to understand everything about a subject based on what God has revealed in His word.  That understanding, however, may be partial because the entire facts have not been revealed by God to us - not because we are unable to comprehend.

For some, though, there is an inability/unwillingness to grasp what is revealed.  1 Timothy 1:7 speaks of teachers who themselves don't understand what they claim... and 2 Timothy 3:6-7 speak of weak women who are "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth."

Our goal when it comes to God's word should to grasp the things God HAS revealed while recognizing some things may very well be difficult to understand because of the limited amount of information available.


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> Any way it goes, God is telling us that some things will be beyond our ability to grasp.  But here's the thing... all our understanding on any topic is based upon the Scriptures.  I'm sure it's safe to assume that God has not revealed all things to us in His word, so can we ever come to know we "fully understand" any subject?
> 
> I do believe it's possible to understand everything about a subject based on what God has revealed in His word.  That understanding, however, may be partial because the entire facts have not been revealed by God to us - not because we are unable to comprehend.
> 
> For some, though, there is an inability/unwillingness to grasp what is revealed.  1 Timothy 1:7 speaks of teachers who themselves don't understand what they claim... and 2 Timothy 3:6-7 speak of weak women who are "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth."
> 
> Our goal when it comes to God's word should to grasp the things God HAS revealed while recognizing some things may very well be difficult to understand because of the limited amount of information available.



I agree. My whole point when we started this particular line was that the scriptures seem, to the best of my knowledge, to reveal that God does have emotions and does change his mind. At least that's what I interpret the scriptures to say. I may not know how a perfect God can operate in that manner and still be perfect, but I will just take it on faith.


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> God's perfection in essence cannot be my perception of Him, but His perception on man  in relation to all His creation is His perfection to me. It is in this his ministry to man that I might note Him a mere man, and for this I appologize. Yet as I strive to  hear and see with the senses of faith, I recall that He heard as a man to the Jews and Gentiles and also to the Hebrews in Egype as the Father in Heaven.



Sorry I didn't follow the transition from the efficacy of prayer to Adam morphing Eve; but we have gotten to "ears is ears is good enough", which I understand to be outside my range.  Thanks for indulging my dullness.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> Sorry I didn't follow the transition from the efficacy of prayer to Adam morphing Eve; but we have gotten to "ears is ears is good enough", which I understand to be outside my range.  Thanks for indulging my dullness.



Stop it.   ;0   EARS IS EARS. LOL


----------



## Ihunt

You guys are smart, educated, well read, and I'm guessing some are preachers. I can not articulate my words and points as well as some but I'll try in my redneck, South Georgia way.

We read the bible and try to think in human terms. We have no other way. God loves me more than I love my son! To me, it's just not possible. 

Read the Bible. Know God. Believe in Jesus. Have Faith. Try to be the best Christian you can. Know you are a sinner. Ask forgiveness. Try to do better.

How hard is this to understand? Not very. You either believe or you do not. The proof is there for me. I just hope it's their for y'all as well.


----------



## hummerpoo

After having determined to look more deeply into theological anthropopathy than before, I learned something interesting: few talk about it.  Most define it, like this author:

“The term “anthropomorphism,” in its restricted sense, refers to the representation of God with the forms of humanity (such as an arm or hand). “Anthropopathism” refers to the representation of God with the feelings of humanity. “Anthropopraxism” refers to the representation of God with the activities of humanity. As professor Edwin M. Yamauchi notes, however, the term anthropomorphism is used in a more general sense to include all these aspects, and it is in this general sense that I use the term in this article.”

then talk about narrowly defined anthropomorphism, never stepping beyond that.  Or, like a 364 page doctrinal dissertation, which quoting and categorizing  every anthropomorphism and anthropopathism in the Pentateuch (there are a lot of them); presented a nice, concise one page conclusion at the end of the anthropomorphisms and at the end of the anthropopathisms, stopped … nothing else, just stopped … then introduced the next section.  (An exception was a young man in his bar mitzvah statement, 100 words or so; very nicely done.)

I related my experience with the hope that it will help others understand my joy when, after working through my owned resources and more than a dozen promising articles on-line, I came across this:

http://www.gbible.org/index.php?proc=pre&sf=rea&tid=420


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> After having determined to look more deeply into theological anthropopathy than before, I learned something interesting: few talk about it.  Most define it, like this author:
> 
> “The term “anthropomorphism,” in its restricted sense, refers to the representation of God with the forms of humanity (such as an arm or hand). “Anthropopathism” refers to the representation of God with the feelings of humanity. “Anthropopraxism” refers to the representation of God with the activities of humanity. As professor Edwin M. Yamauchi notes, however, the term anthropomorphism is used in a more general sense to include all these aspects, and it is in this general sense that I use the term in this article.”
> 
> then talk about narrowly defined anthropomorphism, never stepping beyond that.  Or, like a 364 page doctrinal dissertation, which quoting and categorizing  every anthropomorphism and anthropopathism in the Pentateuch (there are a lot of them); presented a nice, concise one page conclusion at the end of the anthropomorphisms and at the end of the anthropopathisms, stopped … nothing else, just stopped … then introduced the next section.  (An exception was a young man in his bar mitzvah statement, 100 words or so; very nicely done.)
> 
> I related my experience with the hope that it will help others understand my joy when, after working through my owned resources and more than a dozen promising articles on-line, I came across this:
> 
> http://www.gbible.org/index.php?proc=pre&sf=rea&tid=420



To think therefore that a direct contemplation of the attributes on nature might of been the better course...than our traditions might claim.


----------



## gemcgrew

hummerpoo said:


> I related my experience with the hope that it will help others understand my joy when, after working through my owned resources and more than a dozen promising articles on-line, I came across this:
> 
> http://www.gbible.org/index.php?proc=pre&sf=rea&tid=420



Not sure if serious.


----------



## hummerpoo

My desire is to assuage, if possible.

but:


gordon 2 said:


> To think therefore that a direct contemplation of the attributes on nature might of been the better course...than our traditions might claim.


----------



## gemcgrew

Ihunt said:


> You guys are smart, educated, well read, and I'm guessing some are preachers. I can not articulate my words and points as well as some but I'll try in my redneck, South Georgia way.
> 
> We read the bible and try to think in human terms. We have no other way. God loves me more than I love my son! To me, it's just not possible.
> 
> Read the Bible. Know God. Believe in Jesus. Have Faith. Try to be the best Christian you can. Know you are a sinner. Ask forgiveness. Try to do better.
> 
> How hard is this to understand? Not very. You either believe or you do not. The proof is there for me. I just hope it's their for y'all as well.


I noticed that you separated the preachers from the smart, educated and well read.

Amen!


----------



## hummerpoo

gemcgrew said:


> Not sure if serious.



Although there are other things being taught as well; yes, I was seriously pleased that someone would address the issue that God's attributes (i.e., immutability) must be primary in our understanding of scripture; and especially pleased that it was directed to children.


----------



## hummerpoo

gemcgrew said:


> I noticed that you separated the preachers from the smart, educated and well read.
> 
> Amen!



I didn't notice that.
Add my AMEN!


----------



## gemcgrew

hummerpoo said:


> Although there are other things being taught as well; yes, I was seriously pleased that someone would address the issue that God's attributes (i.e., immutability) must be primary in our understanding of scripture; and especially pleased that it was directed to children.


Gotcha. I didn't make it as far down the page as you did.

I went back and read through it and now see your point.


----------



## gemcgrew

Ihunt said:


> We read the bible and try to think in human terms. We have no other way.


As a Christian, I have to reject that. There is another way and it is the only way. If a man continues to think in human terms, he can never discover God.


Ihunt said:


> God loves me more than I love my son! To me, it's just not possible.


That is because whatever you are inferring from the word "love", it is not even similar to the Love of God. 

This is what we are currently discussing here.


----------



## Israel

I sometimes think this, when all else gets pared away.
When all else of rabbit trails, of hypocrisy, of what most often _seems_ the indelible mark of the fall, fails...for a moment in the light of Christ to my mind. It's almost like a shadow I chase, mostly formless, and surely almost blasphemy...except in the utter clarity delivered in that moment.
God is a person. He is the true person of what person is, in its many forms, to us. I would at those times be most tempted to say "God is just a person"...but that word "just" then becomes the nub of irritation. And yet...it remains.
I can easily say "he is an amazing person, a wonderful person, indeed, THE wonder-fullest person...of all" But what I believe is...His being made a person to me is not really for that cause, at all...but really...so that I might believe that...of you.
Might we come to terms with some weirdness? In all our use of words?
Might we glimpse, be able to apprehend in even the slightest measure that "reality" is normal? I don't speak here of just material vs spiritual in our thinking...but the very essential admission that the "how things are (one could add "really" there...if one cares to, but it is redundant...is it not?)" is what is normal...how things appear, if and when contrariwise, is what is abnormal. For us, perhaps, God is "very very different" (one might even say, "abnormal" due to our understanding) But...to Himself? Does God think "gee I am so wayyyy different" or does he just say "I am"? In what distinction does God "need" to see himself? Any, at all? Or is he, being "the reality"(...and here is where words fail...for to say "the sum of" or the whole of...even, almost implies there could be a remainder "outside" to perceive the "whole" or sum...) How odd, no? From what appears such a finite place all descriptions come...yet...reality is not finite. How "real" then..._must it be_ to be appropriately, and INDEED the only appropriate thing...to be _lost in God?_
(I believe I watch some of you there...coming back..."to us" as though by tether pulled back...like Paul...in his "whether to go or stay" "if my staying will be fruitful labor for you...I stay...but really I'd much rather...goooooooo")
Snipers have that saying "Slow is smooth, smooth is FAST"
So it is with the disciple, "Heaven is real, and real is normal, Heaven is normal""
And in the oddest way (I believe grace) we know the pull back is "right"...a man is kinda pulled back to the abnormal for a bit... to not really explain...for he knows he never can of the "wheres he's been"...but to come back...with an aroma that really is all that is ever needed...the smell of home. Spirit.

Words fail here, must fail here...because this is the place of all "made up" words. But Spirit...never fails. Into this comes "the Word of God", not made up...but of which all is made. The destroyer of all "made up" in our previous abnormality, and troubler of what may remain of such...in our own minds.
I used to say, somewhat facetiously, surely cynically, "man discovered language when he realized how hard it is to lie without it" No more. God has entrusted everyone with a gun. We can make no mistake...it is either aimed at him...or ourselves. We "make up" third parties to try and appear..."innocent".

"Look" they say, "a man who continuously shoots himself in his own foot" "he is lost to us."  "let's get rid of him" "he's too abnormal"

No, he's normal as normal can be. Willing to appear as "just" a person...one will either want to know, and will. Or not.
Oh, he knew the miracles would "catch our eye" but what's normal to him, just couldn't be hidden.
Life "really is"...real.
And life is normal.
And maybe it is that precise thing...done by the "Normal One" that puts the lie to "why doesn't God prevent bad things from happening" 
HE IS WHAT IS HAPPENING.
And he would not leave us believing abnormal is. What happens.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> And maybe it is that precise thing...done by the "Normal One" that puts the lie to "why doesn't God prevent bad things from happening"
> HE IS WHAT IS HAPPENING.
> And he would not leave us believing abnormal is. What happens.


Amen!


----------



## gordon 2

gemcgrew said:


> As a Christian, I have to reject that. There is another way and it is the only way. If a man continues to think in human terms, he can never discover God.
> 
> That is because whatever you are inferring from the word "love", it is not even similar to the Love of God.
> 
> This is what we are currently discussing here.



Am I correct to believe that in order to say the above that one must believe in the total depravity of man, post  the fall?

And that the life one survives as a living being is one of election or of the eternally lost to which both the references to the Divine are hopelessly inadequate? And therefore what is our claim to a communion any clearer than the pagan contemplating his nature and heavens and the earth? And what great occasions for despair?

In my nook as a sinner and a saint it seems that through Jesus God teaches with exactness concerning Himself in human terms.


----------



## Artfuldodger

We are commanded to love God and our neighbors. How close did Jesus show us how to do this in his life on the earth as a man?
How close was the man Jesus as the image of God that we are also a part of?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> We are commanded to love (agape) God and our neighbors. How close did Jesus show us how to do this in his life on the earth as a man?


PERFECTLY.

Objection: What about the Pharisees?
He was showing (agape) love.
We sometimes say "tuff love".

Q: Is tuff love the same as agape love?
A: No, tuff love is just one part of agape love?

Confession: I would rather just ignore them, but that is not the command.


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> PERFECTLY.
> 
> Objection: What about the Pharisees?
> He was showing (agape) love.
> We sometimes say "tuff love".
> 
> Confession: I would rather just ignore them, but that is not the command.


Oh, BTW...your comment keeps coming back to me, though it won't right now...funny huh? So I'll think for a few. Oh, yeah...here it is, plain as day. I liked it a lot.

It was about the preacher that said election is mentioned in the Bible, but it shouldn't be taught cause no one understands it. To which I heard the spirit of Christ (through you) respond akin to this "the trinity is not mentioned in the Bible...but it's taught a lot".

And then came the light through you. More or less, because... "no man forfeits his sovereignty in the teaching of the trinity".  Just wanted you to know it has impact.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> Oh, BTW...your comment keeps coming back to me, though it won't right now...funny huh? So I'll think for a few. Oh, yeah...here it is, plain as day. I liked it a lot.
> 
> It was about the preacher that said election is mentioned in the Bible, but it shouldn't be taught cause no one understands it. To which I heard the spirit of Christ (through you) respond akin to this "the trinity is not mentioned in the Bible...but it's taught a lot".
> 
> And then came the light through you. More or less, because... "no man forfeits his sovereignty in the teaching of the trinity".  Just wanted you to know it has impact.



Thank you twice my brother, for you have blessed me twice.

First and most significantly; I have noted that a large percentage of my posts are not responded to; never meaning that they have no impact, but one must wonder.

Second, it is so comforting to know that others have filing cabinets that contain misfiles.


----------



## hobbs27

God loves His children. What about those not in Covenant? Love, No feeling,anger, hatred, something else (explain) ?


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> God loves His children. What about those not in Covenant? Love, No feeling,anger, hatred, something else (explain) ?



I am unaware of a scripturally sufficient answer for the question "does God love the reprobate?" (taken as someone who will never be regenerate/justified/glorified); the qualification "in covenant" would add contingencies that would make the question more difficult because both in covenant temporally (born again/from above) and in covenant eternally (elect from the foundation ... however one sees that happening) must be considered.

Even speculation is difficult because great caution must be used to insure that our knowledge of what individual is in covenant is excluded, in recognition of our total lack of such knowledge.

I'm not saying there is no answer, just that I doubt there is an answer.

I'll just wait with interest.


----------



## Israel

I also think sometimes of mercy.
Of what it means to me in practice.
And as a recommended practice.
Especially to me.
For me, though it may seem a strenuous exercise, and at times the very last thing I come to when pressed, I believe I recently heard this. 
"Learn the practice of considering others better than you may already know. For unless one does this, how can one ever know Me?"

And I saw it. Whatever I may think I know of the Lord, He is able to show me I have known little to nothing at all...when He demonstrates a fresh mercy born of His goodness. And yet...there's absolutely no shame in being that unknowing. 

I have never felt "bad" when finding out God is better than I think.


----------



## gemcgrew

hummerpoo said:


> Thank you twice my brother, for you have blessed me twice.
> 
> First and most significantly; I have noted that a large percentage of my posts are not responded to; never meaning that they have no impact, but one must wonder.
> 
> Second, it is so comforting to know that others have filing cabinets that contain misfiles.


That was a failure on my part. I was blessed tremendously by your statement "the teacher does not give up his personal power". It was very fitting.

At the same time, the mentioning of J. Vernon McGee brought back a lot of memories. I could actually hear his voice on the radio... in the car... mom and dad there... brothers and sister there... listening... as a family. It brought me to a praise God moment.

I thank you for that!

If I ever disagree with something you say on here, I will challenge you. I expect the same from you.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> I am unaware of a scripturally sufficient answer for the question "does God love the reprobate?" (taken as someone who will never be regenerate/justified/glorified); the qualification "in covenant" would add contingencies that would make the question more difficult because both in covenant temporally (born again/from above) and in covenant eternally (elect from the foundation ... however one sees that happening) must be considered.
> 
> Even speculation is difficult because great caution must be used to insure that our knowledge of what individual is in covenant is excluded, in recognition of our total lack of such knowledge.
> 
> I'm not saying there is no answer, just that I doubt there is an answer.
> 
> I'll just wait with interest.



Perhaps his first creation was a reprobate, never to be regenerated.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> I also think sometimes of mercy.


I know that you are thinking a lot of it.


----------



## gemcgrew

gordon 2 said:


> Am I correct to believe that in order to say the above that one must believe in the total depravity of man, post  the fall?


You are incorrect. Even an Atheist can say the above. But the Atheist can say the above, only, because God is.


gordon 2 said:


> And that the life one survives as a living being is one of election or of the eternally lost to which both the references to the Divine are hopelessly inadequate?


What do you mean by "both the references"? Or are you saying "both the elect and reprobate"? Would my inability to determine what you are even asking, not be a sufficient answer?


gordon 2 said:


> And therefore what is our claim to a communion any clearer than the pagan contemplating his nature and heavens and the earth?


God


gordon 2 said:


> And what great occasions for despair?





gordon 2 said:


> In my nook as a sinner and a saint it seems that through Jesus God teaches with exactness concerning Himself in human terms.


Fine, then be consistent in your nook. When Jesus referred to the woman as "a dog", she was exactly that and not even a person.


----------



## gemcgrew

hummerpoo said:


> I am unaware of a scripturally sufficient answer for the question "does God love the reprobate?"


The answer is a very simple one. Within "does God love the reprobate?" is an infinite number of logically prior questions that must be established(answered correctly). 

Flesh and blood does not reveal it.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> You are incorrect. Even an Atheist can say the above. But the Atheist can say the above, only, because God is.
> 
> What do you mean by "both the references"? Or are you saying "both the elect and reprobate"? Would my inability to determine what you are even asking, not be a sufficient answer?
> 
> God
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, then be consistent in your nook. When Jesus referred to the woman as "a dog", she was exactly that and not even a person.



One might then ask, as I am also much concerned at "being" a person, as a person who is all "personhood" is seeming to show of a something I have believed, but which he appears now to be "fleshing out" as in "Jesus didn't come to make us good, but to make us real"...therefore this question pertaining to the above in  red...did her "entrance" into being a person before him (and one might consider if the mere granting of her petition indicates that, at all) come to be acknowledged through her response? That is, by accepting to herself the Lord's appraisal of her in: "Yes, but even the dogs..."?

"if ye then, being evil...know how to give good gifts to your children..."


The marvel of grace, huh? There's only One who can allow for a man's agreement in that to show where life is.


There I will give her back her vineyards, and will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.

I am the man who deceitfully slew his brother because his offering was righteous, and mine, was not.
The man who stole the accursed thing and hid it in his tent.
Rightfully, I am declared, evil.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> God loves His children. What about those not in Covenant? Love, No feeling,anger, hatred, something else (explain) ?



To properly answer this,we need to know specifically which covenant you are referring to.

There is a huge difference; one being a temporal covenant and the other an everlasting covenant.

See the problem?


----------



## Israel

This remians:

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,…

It really does appear that one is either seeing the glory in mercy...or still thinking he probably has a better way of doing things than God.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> To properly answer this,we need to know specifically which covenant you are referring to.
> 
> There is a huge difference; one being a temporal covenant and the other an everlasting covenant.
> 
> See the problem?



John 3:16 answers the question very simply. " For God so loved the world."


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> John 3:16 answers the question very simply. " For God so loved the world."



Rom.9:6b"...For they are not all Israel that are of Israel."

I think this begs a closer look into the defining of "world" in John 3:16.


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> God loves His children. What about those not in Covenant? Love, No feeling,anger, hatred, something else (explain) ?



Perhaps  God's wrath is an work of love to return sinners to their states of grace-- as we are living today?


----------



## welderguy

I am not of the camp which believes God loves everyone but somehow couldn't get them all to love Him.That's not scriptural.

He knoweth His sheep and His sheep follow Him.He loses none.
And BTW,He chose them before the foundation of the world.(Eph.1)


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 9:8
That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 

One can read on in this chapter and see who the are the children of the promise.
One can also see the purpose of  Pharaoh(vessel of wrath) and on who God will have mercy.

Is that really fair? Is God not just;

14What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> John 3:16 answers the question very simply. " For God so loved the world."



Then why not provide universal salvation? Why were the Gentiles at one time living without the promises, without hope, and without God? Where was God's mercy on them? Where is God's mercy on the world today concerning foreign pagan lands, the Hindu, the South American natives, the African jungle natives? The Gentiles we haven't reached?
Doesn't God realize most children will take on the religion of their parents? Why punish these children when they grow up? Why don't they have an excuse?


----------



## Artfuldodger

If God loves the whole world, somebody better get busy. Either God or us. I'll leave it up to God. His reaching and electing powers are greater than mine.


----------



## hobbs27

This is where I feel led to believe, and I'll try to include an answer to the many appreciated comments so far.

What Covenant? The only Covenant of grace.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.

 I believe God does indeed love everyone, even the lost, or reprobate, or those not in Christ IE Covenant.
 Had He not loved them He would not given them ( us in a prior state) a way. Jesus is the way.

Also, for those lost, reprobates, not in Christ or Covenant, they do not benefit from the love of God..He doesn't know them...in a sense of communing with them, blessing them and chastising them. 
 The opportunity for them is there, Christ' atonement could save the entire world, but we know as not all were in Adam, also not all are in Christ.

1John 4 could use all of our attention and going over again when it comes to this topic
 God Bless.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> Rom.9:6b"...For they are not all Israel that are of Israel."
> 
> I think this begs a closer look into the defining of "world" in John 3:16.



Romans 9:6 is only saying that not all who are born of Israel in the flesh are of the covenant. The thought is later confirmed in 9:8 which says that it is those of the promise who are counted as seed.

It's nearly the same thought that is given in Galatians 3 which tells us that the seed to whom the promise is given is actually Christ and it is all who are Christ's that are considered Abraham's seed and heirs of the promise.

Paul expresses this same view again in Romans 2:29 which says that a Jew is not outwardly of the flesh, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly and circumcision is of the heart and not only of the flesh.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> I am not of the camp which believes God loves everyone but somehow couldn't get them all to love Him.That's not scriptural.
> 
> He knoweth His sheep and His sheep follow Him.He loses none.
> And BTW,He chose them before the foundation of the world.(Eph.1)



I see it as very scriptural. In fact to interpret scriptures in such a way to say that God chooses who is saved and who is not would be to deny other scripture such as 1 Tim.2:4 which says that God wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. This is the very reason that Paul was sent to the Gentiles. If God simply chooses, there would be no need to send anyone.

I will admit that some scriptures look on the surface to say that God chooses but deep study will reveal that it isn't a matter of God choosing one to be saved and one not for salvation as much as God choosing mercy and saying that he will have mercy even on those who don't deserve mercy as an act of his sovereign will. These seeming predestination scriptures also deal with how God has predetermined what he will do for those who choose his mercy.


----------



## Israel

RH Clark said:


> I see it as very scriptural. In fact to interpret scriptures in such a way to say that God chooses who is saved and who is not would be to deny other scripture such as 1 Tim.2:4 which says that God wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. This is the very reason that Paul was sent to the Gentiles. If God simply chooses, there would be no need to send anyone.
> 
> I will admit that some scriptures look on the surface to say that God chooses but deep study will reveal that it isn't a matter of God choosing one to be saved and one not for salvation as much as God choosing mercy and saying that he will have mercy even on those who don't deserve mercy as an act of his sovereign will. These seeming predestination scriptures also deal with how God has predetermined what he will do for those who choose his mercy.



Mercy deserved is not mercy. It is called just recompense.
Who wants that?


----------



## RH Clark

Israel said:


> Mercy deserved is not mercy. It is called just recompense.
> Who wants that?



I certainly don't want what I deserve! Point taken, but even if my wording is a bit lacking, you get the message.


----------



## hummerpoo

gemcgrew said:


> The answer is a very simple one. Within "does God love the reprobate?" is an infinite number of logically prior questions that must be established(answered correctly).
> 
> Flesh and blood does not reveal it.



I understand; I guess my hesitancy with that approach is my perceived similarity of "does God love the reprobate" to "how does God choose the elect".


----------



## hummerpoo

gemcgrew said:


> That was a failure on my part. I was blessed tremendously by your statement "the teacher does not give up his personal power". It was very fitting.
> 
> At the same time, the mentioning of J. Vernon McGee brought back a lot of memories. I could actually hear his voice on the radio... in the car... mom and dad there... brothers and sister there... listening... as a family. It brought me to a praise God moment.
> 
> I thank you for that!
> 
> If I ever disagree with something you say on here, I will challenge you. I expect the same from you.



There isn't a doubt in my mind about that, and that is as it should be.

I guess my real concern, if I truly have one, is not how you, or Israel, are hearing me, but are those who see God differently seeing a different view (LORD rather than Lord, or even lord).  If they aren't, I'm probably not following instructions very well.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> I see it as very scriptural. In fact to interpret scriptures in such a way to say that God chooses who is saved and who is not would be to deny other scripture such as 1 Tim.2:4 which says that God wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. This is the very reason that Paul was sent to the Gentiles. If God simply chooses, there would be no need to send anyone.
> 
> I will admit that some scriptures look on the surface to say that God chooses but deep study will reveal that it isn't a matter of God choosing one to be saved and one not for salvation as much as God choosing mercy and saying that he will have mercy even on those who don't deserve mercy as an act of his sovereign will. These seeming predestination scriptures also deal with how God has predetermined what he will do for those who choose his mercy.



Here is the "all" that God loves.

John 6:37
" All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

It's pretty evident to me that all people are not coming to Jesus.So that tells me that every person has not been given to Jesus by the Father.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> Here is the "all" that God loves.
> 
> John 6:37
> " All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."
> 
> It's pretty evident to me that all people are not coming to Jesus.So that tells me that every person has not been given to Jesus by the Father.



 If then ,we are as you say, some of the lucky few who have been chosen, why the commission to "Go ye unto all the world and preach the Gospel,"  Why is it "He that believeth not shall be da----", instead of he that isn't chosen shall be da----?


----------



## Israel

If, by definition, reprobate is among other things, a mind over to which God has turned them, unable to acknowledge the truth, opposers of the faith, rejected of God, a producer of thorns and thistles...whose end is to be burned...

I fear to say more.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> This remians:
> 
> What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,…
> 
> It really does appear that one is either seeing the glory in mercy...or still thinking he probably has a better way of doing things than God.



From your having gotten me started, I ended up at:



> Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
> "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"
> "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?"
> For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.



Thanks, it was a good trip.
Now I will study the pictures for a while.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> If then ,we are as you say, some of the lucky few who have been chosen, why the commission to "Go ye unto all the world and preach the Gospel,"  Why is it "He that believeth not shall be da----", instead of he that isn't chosen shall be da----?



John 3:18
" He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Notice he's condemned "already".It wasn't that God was waiting around to see if he would believe,he was already condemned to unbelief.

The commission to preach the gospel is to all who are given by the Father.He said He would redeem them OUT OF every kindred,tongue and nation.


----------



## RH Clark

Israel said:


> If, by definition, reprobate is among other things, a mind over to which God has turned them, unable to acknowledge the truth, opposers of the faith, rejected of God, a producer of thorns and thistles...whose end is to be burned...
> 
> I fear to say more.



A literal Greek translation of, giving over to a reprobate mind, is as follows.

And even as after putting God to the test for the purpose of approving Him should he meet the specifications, and finding that He did not, they disapproved of holding Him in their full and precise knowledge, God gave them up to a mind which would not meet the test for that which a mind was meant, to practice those things which were not becoming nor fitting.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> John 3:18
> " He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
> 
> Notice he's condemned "already".It wasn't that God was waiting around to see if he would believe,he was already condemned to unbelief.
> 
> The commission to preach the gospel is to all who are given by the Father.He said He would redeem them OUT OF every kindred,tongue and nation.



We agree on a lot of things but I don't think we will agree on this particular issue. I've studied it from every angle and I simply don't believe in predestination, to the degree that God pre determines who will be saved and who will not.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> We agree on a lot of things but I don't think we will agree on this particular issue. I've studied it from every angle and I simply don't believe in predestination, to the degree that God pre determines who will be saved and who will not.



I understand.I don't get bent out of shape with folks over this subject.But I really believe it is unglorifying when we don't proclaim a successful Saviour, who does not lose any that He died for.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> I understand.I don't get bent out of shape with folks over this subject.But I really believe it is unglorifying when we don't proclaim a successful Saviour, who does not lose any that He died for.



If they were predestined from the foundation of the world..why bother with atonement? The cross is null if salvation came to a lucky group predetermined before man was made.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> If they were predestined from the foundation of the world..why bother with atonement? The cross is null if salvation came to a lucky group predetermined before man was made.



A price had to be paid for our sins.A price that we could not pay.Anything less than a perfect sacrifice would not appease God's holy wrath.

The cross was not null.It accomplished what it was purposed before the world began.Jesus was the lamb slain as it were before the foundation of the world.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> A literal Greek translation of, giving over to a reprobate mind, is as follows.
> 
> And even as after putting God to the test for the purpose of approving Him should he meet the specifications, and finding that He did not, they disapproved of holding Him in their full and precise knowledge, God gave them up to a mind which would not meet the test for that which a mind was meant, to practice those things which were not becoming nor fitting.



Wuest?  If I guessed right, where?
 If I guessed wrong, please identify your source.


----------



## gemcgrew

Personal power.

Is anybody out there?

Any?

Body?

There?

I've fallen and I can't get up!

Hummerpoo
Thank you!


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> Wuest?  If I guessed right, where?
> If I guessed wrong, please identify your source.



 Yes sir, it is from Wuest's  Romans in the Greek New Testament. I should have identified the source right away, but since Wuest took information from several Greek scholars, I wasn't sure who to attribute that particular passage to.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> A price had to be paid for our sins.A price that we could not pay.Anything less than a perfect sacrifice would not appease God's holy wrath.
> 
> The cross was not null.It accomplished what it was purposed before the world began.Jesus was the lamb slain as it were before the foundation of the world.



Why did a price have to be paid if it was all a done deal before man was even created?


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> Why did a price have to be paid if it was all a done deal before man was even created?



Exactly, why couldn't that price have been paid before man was ever created if it was already determined?


----------



## hummerpoo

Make your choice:

NIV: All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

NASB:All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Why did a price have to be paid if it was all a done deal before man was even created?



1 Pet.1:18-21

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

This is why:
" was manifest in these last times for you,
 who by him do believe in God"


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> Why did a price have to be paid if it was all a done deal before man was even created?


So the cock could twice crow.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> 1 Pet.1:18-21
> 
> 18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
> 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
> 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
> 
> This is why:
> " was manifest in these last times for you,
> who by him do believe in God"



Show me something that is to us in our time and not to those that were in the last times.

I agree the bride of Christ was appointed and predestined, what about us children?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Show me something that is to us in our time and not to those that were in the last times.
> 
> I agree the bride of Christ was appointed and predestined, what about us children?



I believe that we are in the last times.
And I believe that we are the bride of Christ.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Show me something that is to us in our time and not to those that were in the last times.
> 
> I agree the bride of Christ was appointed and predestined, what about us children?



Audience relevance strikes again.

What about post #712.  Is Rev. to somebody else too?

Why don't you just tell us what part of the Bible you accept and what part you reject.


----------



## hummerpoo

To anyone interested.

The following is just what it looks like; one result from the google search “Wuest review”.
While the quote from F. F. Bruce necessarily carries weight and the recommendations are sound (see link), no one should form an opinion from one source alone (even our copy of the Bible requires source checking).  That means you will have to do some real work of your own.



> Nevertheless it does seem to be the case that (as Bruce also gently indicates) "Sometimes, indeed, one may wonder whether some of the shades of meaning have not been read into the Greek in order to be read out of it." (The English Bible: A History of Translations, p. 182). Several of the examples above go well beyond a strictly philological exegesis, and enter into the realm of theological exposition. We may also note that the painfully explicit and unidiomatic representation of verbal tenses in the translation tends to exaggerate their semantic value, and this will lead some naive English readers into misguided questions and speculations about their exegetical significance. It would probably be better for students who want to explore the nuances of the Greek to use an ordinary version while consulting Wuest's Word Studies volumes, or the similar works by A.T. Robertson and Marvin Vincent.



http://www.bible-researcher.com/wuest.html


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Audience relevance strikes again.
> 
> What about post #712.  Is Rev. to somebody else too?
> 
> Why don't you just tell us what part of the Bible you accept and what part you reject.




If it means nothing to the original audience..it means nothing at all.

Revelation is indeed written to someone else. It is a letter to the seven churches in Asia, concerning things which must soon take place....written pre 70ad. If it is not fulfilled, we must redefine soon.

CH. 13 the Sea beast was Rome, Ken Gentry does an excellent commentary on Revelation explaining this. It's a couple of hours long, but worth it.

Revelation is basically John's olivet discourse..the only Gospel author that didn't write it in his account.

As for what I reject and accept. There's one entire page that should be ripped out of everyone's Bible. Besides that one page, I stand firm on every word of it...oh that page is found between Malachi and Matthew. It says New Testament.. And it's misplaced, the Gospel is recorded in the old testsament.


----------



## Israel

καὶ
8   and
8   Conj
4352 [e]
proskynēsousin
προσκυνήσουσιν
will worship
V-FIA-3P
846 [e]
auton
αὐτὸν
it
PPro-AM3S
3956 [e]
pantes
πάντες
all
Adj-NMP
3588 [e]
hoi
οἱ
 - 
Art-NMP
2730 [e]
katoikountes
κατοικοῦντες
dwelling
V-PPA-NMP
1909 [e]
epi
ἐπὶ
on
Prep
3588 [e]
tēs
τῆς
the
Art-GFS
1093 [e]
gēs
γῆς  ,
earth
N-GFS
3739 [e]
hou
οὗ
of whom
RelPro-GMS
3756 [e]
ou
οὐ
not
Adv
1125 [e]
gegraptai
γέγραπται  ,
have been written
V-RIM/P-3S
3588 [e]
to
τὸ
the
Art-NNS
3686 [e]
onoma
ὄνομα
names
N-NNS
846 [e]
autou
αὐτοῦ
of them
PPro-GM3S
1722 [e]
en
ἐν
in
Prep
3588 [e]
tō
τῷ
the
Art-DNS
975 [e]
bibliō
βιβλίῳ
book
N-DNS
3588 [e]
tēs
τῆς
 - 
Art-GFS
2222 [e]
zōēs
ζωῆς
of life
N-GFS
3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
of the
Art-GNS
721 [e]
Arniou
Ἀρνίου
Lamb
N-GNS
3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
 - 
Art-GNS
4969 [e]
esphagmenou
ἐσφαγμένου  ,
having been slain
V-RPM/P-GNS
575 [e]
apo
ἀπὸ
from
Prep
2602 [e]
katabolēs
καταβολῆς
[the] founding
N-GFS
2889 [e]
kosmou
κόσμου  .
of [the] world
N-GMS

Man, I know that is awkward as all get out...but the interlinear works for me.
"Eternal Purpose"...is something I am sure I am not the only one who finds himself wrestling with. Or whatever term is more fitting than "wrestling"...
If Jesus and his bloody offering is a plan "B" of sorts, or even a modification, in any way in the mind of God...as in "this first has to be paid so I can love them...or "be near" them...or be with them...in them..." then I am in a curious place with such a God.
Who's then to say "how do you know there's not a plan C?" Or D? Well, I could say "I haven't heard of it". 
And a rightful response could easily be "well you didn't know about plan "B" before you heard of it, either".

I cannot lessen, nor would I be inclined to even seek to lessen the Lord's sacrifice on our behalf. But if it were a "new thing" to God...then I am surely left worshipping the God of caprice. "I'll do this, I'll do that...and do a change up here..."

Now, the wrestling comes in that tension between (for me) God can do precisely as he pleases, (who am I to respond?)...but faith tells me "because this matter of the Lord's death is foundational to me (and God forbid I in any way fail to be conscious of the resurrection)...then there would be at least a place where "its" that is, the death of One for many, is of eternal preparation. Not a "new" or just "better idea". 

(Is it "new" to us? Oh yes! Forever, new.)

It is not that it is a "new plan"...the Lamb slain (to me at least)...but the very manifestation (manifest in these last days, for us) of the nature and character of the One who says "Let us make man in our image, and in our likeness" It is, now for me, less about a price being paid...(though it is always true) than a revelation of the very nature of our Father. As I have worn your ears off with this notion, I cannot help but repeat it...that of TOTAL investment in His act of creation of US.
The cross is where this is manifest to us...the cross indeed, the dying of the righteous for the unrighteous...the making of what is not yet like Him...to be, in every way now...in "his image and likeness".
To God, indeed...it is accomplished...finished...done. No less than at the very first...of his intent.
For God's purpose, intent..."good pleasure"...he starts with dust. Clay. To us...so common...so ignoble...and...in its very ubiquity/abundance   "ignorable". Dust. It's everywhere...we even talk about "space dust"...just stuff...what's the big deal?

But here's where, I, me personally, am directed. Like dust, I am also bathed in a something...so common to me, so around me, so ineffably deep and ubiquitous...as to go unnoticed. Being. I don't even think about it...this thing that is essential to me so that I even have the capacity to be ignorant...of it! When do I ever "doubt"...I am? (Pain has a curious effect...in that area...of driving something home...so to speak. Pain in whatever form...sensing of lack, sensing of incursion...into "my being".)
But...back to dust...like my "being". We count it as nothing...and for the most part, are not quite impressed, (because of its commonness) yet it has been, for us, that God...starts "there". 

But wait...dust has "being", no less of eternal consequence and of eternal intent, and eternal preparation...no matter its seeming consequence...or lack thereof to any of us. Dust...no less than I, is a created thing...of purpose...of intent...so, why shouldn't God have a purpose to it? What I count common...in my slumber...God...does not.
What..."of me" wants to attach ignobility to a thing no less purposed than the brightest and most vibrant flower?
Ahhh, because I haven't "considered" it...as it is. I have taken it for granted...and missed it. This often nuisance thing...to me.
And here is where I get "sobered up"...in my "being".
What is more "common" than dust? What is the most common thing I know and have...and continually take "for granted"? Yes, being...at all. 

Men, well, some men...look at all of creation, study it from Nebulae to neutrinos...and come back with this report "we see no design or evidence of intent here...or beneficence here...just a cold and indifferent universe of happenstance...no we are alone...all...alone" WE...are alone? Huh? How can a "we" be alone? I know I go a little far afield. But this is what man, left "to himself" must come up with. Not even aware that in the saying of anything, the thinking of anything, the perception of anything from his neutrinos to Nebulae in which he finds nothing to point in that vastness, of intent, totally neglects his apprehension...I look everywhere for anything to which I can relate at a higher level, and find nothing...and yet...never considers that in all that he sees of "not like him" HE IS! In all that testifies his very being is the most unlikeliest thing of all "to be"...he IS. I see no life, I see no plan, I see nothing but CHAOS...says the being...ordering his own words. How odd.

So, back to sobriety. If all testifies to me...I have "no right" to be...then what is this thing that "allows " for my being...and I begin to see, that ubiquitous and common thing "to me"...as much...no...far exceedingly more taken for granted than my little toe nail...mercy. It is the nature of my being...it is from there that my being originates...even to be taken for granted...(and Oh! how I have!) Yes, it took a sharp pain...a something of an incursion, a total frontal assault to all the "taking for grantedness) that caused me to sleep. And that is the Lord's entrance into the "heart of the earth", mine. I did not seek him, I did not ask for him... "to be who he is"

I couldn't have even imagined...that is who he is. The one who enters "the dust". But...as dust is no less of the marvelous formation of his Father's intent...he is not ashamed of it...at all.


"when it pleased God to reveal His son in me..." this dust...I am...thinking dust, feeling dust, knowing dust...I awoke. But only to what has always been, and now seen dimly...but there...of a One who put all of Himself into dust...that the one thing of Him I have so taken for granted (look! he's in our bread and wine!) to know...we are created from...mercy. And for it.

And the very ubiquity of it...in smiling child to thumb struck hammer blow...is not to be missed.


----------



## hummerpoo

You ask:



hobbs27 said:


> If they were predestined from the foundation of the world..why bother with atonement? The cross is null if salvation came to a lucky group predetermined before man was made.



Which is closer to testing God than I would want to call.

Then you rejected God's teaching through both Peter and John directly describing our Savior and His salvation.

So my question for you is:
do you only read the bible to prepare for the task of converting others to your near-heretical special revelation of scripture?

I will renew my prayers for you.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> 1 Pet.1:18-21
> 
> 18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
> 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
> 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
> 
> This is why:
> " was manifest in these last times for you,
> who by him do believe in God"



I don't think you understand my question. I know it was a done deal as far as it was already determined in Heaven that Jesus would be the savior of man, and that the saints had been foreordained to be the recipient of that salvation. These verses do not say that it was already foreordained which men would be saints and therefore be recipients of grace.

The very reason that Jesus was sacrificed when he was sacrificed was so it would be the optimum time. A time which would be the pinnacle moment for a sacrifice that would lead men through faith to accept Jesus, which is necessary for salvation because who recieves salvation isn't predetermined by God.

The priesthood with its animal sacrifices was necessary to point the way to Jesus, again because that way had to be pointed out. If salvation were predetermined, there would be no need to point the way to salvation. The law was necessary to show men the sinfulness of their lives, so that they would see the need for sacrifice to cover that sin. All these things leading men to trust in Jesus for salvation, that trust being necessary because their salvation was not predetermined regardless of their choice.


----------



## Israel

Because God knows man; of his thoughts of dust and what man considers his most noble thoughts of God. But the finishing touch is his alone to provide.
But second touch becomes first touch if first touch is unknown.
But, always, second touch is sufficient to open the eyes....Even to see it is consequent to first.
It may be "Now I know you love me"

or, 



"Now I know you have always loved me"


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> I don't think you understand my question. I know it was a done deal as far as it was already determined in Heaven that Jesus would be the savior of man, and that the saints had been foreordained to be the recipient of that salvation. These verses do not say that it was already foreordained which men would be saints and therefore be recipients of grace.
> 
> The very reason that Jesus was sacrificed when he was sacrificed was so it would be the optimum time. A time which would be the pinnacle moment for a sacrifice that would lead men through faith to accept Jesus, which is necessary for salvation because who recieves salvation isn't predetermined by God.
> 
> The priesthood with its animal sacrifices was necessary to point the way to Jesus, again because that way had to be pointed out. If salvation were predetermined, there would be no need to point the way to salvation. The law was necessary to show men the sinfulness of their lives, so that they would see the need for sacrifice to cover that sin. All these things leading men to trust in Jesus for salvation, that trust being necessary because their salvation was not predetermined regardless of their choice.



Even knowing the most likely answer, I still ask:

Can you not see that your statement is eisegetical in that it ignores that God's thoughts are not man's thoughts (Is. 55:8) and thereby makes God a glorified man?


----------



## Israel

I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.


Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> You ask:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is closer to testing God than I would want to call.
> 
> Then you rejected God's teaching through both Peter and John directly describing our Savior and His salvation.
> 
> So my question for you is:
> do you only read the bible to prepare for the task of converting others to your near-heretical special revelation of scripture?
> 
> I will renew my prayers for you.



I did not reject God's teaching. I rejected some men's teaching.

Christ was slain from the foundation of the world does not mean literally. It means it was always God's plan for the redemption of man. Until Christ was slain there was no redemption of man. 

This is why the " dead ones" were held in Hades awaiting redemption. If man points to a before the foundation of the world as a time it was determined that they would be born into this world a saved man, then the statement stands. The Cross has been made null. My salvation came through the cross, hearing the word and having the word Pierce my heart, causing me to plea with God that He may save me, in which He did.

He can save anyone that calls out to Him in a humble state for salvation... There is no longer Jew or Greek, the word has gone out to the whole world, it's the good news.I know a lady that was hooked on meth for over 20 years. She lost all her 4 children to the state, she continued. She spent a couple of years in jail only to get out and continue. The last time she was busted the judge ordered her to rehab. After speaking with a rehab counselor and showing no emotion of the bad things that had happened to her the counselor said, I don't think I can do anything for you, you have no feelings. She responded, Is there no hope at all for me?  A preacher standing in listening said, Yes! There is hope. She attended 4 hours of Bible study and two hours of worship every day for 5 weeks. In that time she was saved, and now works to counsel other addicts.... God can change anyone, through the redemptive powers of the Cross , not just some luck of the draw, born to be saved.

I don't try to convert people, so to speak. I enjoy discussing the great things of God that comes through fulfillment, and I challenge people only to sharpen the iron.


----------



## hummerpoo

Yada, yada, yada.


----------



## Bama4me

Israel said:


> I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.



Much of the false Calvinistic thought has been built upon some of these passages in John.  Earlier in this thread, a person stated "I really believe it is unglorifying when we don't proclaim a successful Saviour, who does not lose any that He died for."  It is interesting to me that in this part of John, Jesus clearly indicated one of the apostles (Judas) became lost - a person God had "given Him".

The "failure" in regards to Christ's sacrifice is NOT in some type of weakness with Christ.  It has to do with people who make the decision to deny Christ.  When people are created with free will, some will choose death - just as some will choose life.  The fact some choose to ignore Christ's work has nothing to do with Christ's power or inabilities - He allows people to walk away from Him if they wish.

In regards to predestination, the NT does teach it.  What kind of predestination is taught - individual or group?  That is the question.  We are "chosen" in Christ (Ephesians 1:4).  If you allow the bible to comment on "in Christ" from the book of Galatians, you'll see that the being "in Christ" is a matter of choice - and it is a group.  Everyone who is "in Christ" is saved.


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> Even knowing the most likely answer, I still ask:
> 
> Can you not see that your statement is eisegetical in that it ignores that God's thoughts are not man's thoughts (Is. 55:8) and thereby makes God a glorified man?



Not at all. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion simply because I think God allows men free will and a choice.

As for Isaiah 55:8, as I've said before the text there isn't just saying that God's thoughts are higher than ours and we can never hope to understand. Read the verses before and after and you will see that what God is saying is that, yes, his thoughts are higher ,so he wants you to forsake your thoughts and learn his thoughts through his word, which he has sent for that purpose, and that word will accomplish that purpose and not return to him void.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> Not at all. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion simply because I think God allows men free will and a choice.
> 
> As for Isaiah 55:8, as I've said before the text there isn't just saying that God's thoughts are higher than ours and we can never hope to understand. Read the verses before and after and you will see that what God is saying is that, yes, his thoughts are higher ,so he wants you to forsake your thoughts and learn his thoughts through his word, which he has sent for that purpose, and that word will accomplish that purpose and not return to him void.



You have generalized and ignored the point, which is that you have, in the instance of your statement, applied mans logic to extend and humanize God's message further that what He has already accomplished so that we can understand it.  The result is that God is humanized.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> You have generalized and ignored the point, which is that you have, in the instance of your statement, applied mans logic to extend and humanize God's message further that what He has already accomplished so that we can understand it.  The result is that God is humanized.



What does this mean "to extend and humanize God's message further that what He has already accomplished"?


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> I don't think you understand my question. I know it was a done deal as far as it was already determined in Heaven that Jesus would be the savior of man, and that the saints had been foreordained to be the recipient of that salvation. These verses do not say that it was already foreordained which men would be saints and therefore be recipients of grace.
> 
> The very reason that Jesus was sacrificed when he was sacrificed was so it would be the optimum time. A time which would be the pinnacle moment for a sacrifice that would lead men through faith to accept Jesus, which is necessary for salvation because who recieves salvation isn't predetermined by God.
> 
> The priesthood with its animal sacrifices was necessary to point the way to Jesus, again because that way had to be pointed out. If salvation were predetermined, there would be no need to point the way to salvation. The law was necessary to show men the sinfulness of their lives, so that they would see the need for sacrifice to cover that sin. All these things leading men to trust in Jesus for salvation, that trust being necessary because their salvation was not predetermined regardless of their choice.



Our names were written in the Lambs book of Life from the foundation of the world.Yes,He foreknew each one that He would save specifically.

"I have loved thee with an everlasting love,therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."

"Nothing can separate us from the love of God,which is in Christ Jesus"


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> You have generalized and ignored the point, which is that you have, in the instance of your statement, applied mans logic to extend and humanize God's message further that what He has already accomplished so that we can understand it.  The result is that God is humanized.




God is the one who humanized his message. He did it so that we could understand it. God didn't send his word to baffle you and prove that he can't be understood. God sent his word so that you would know the truth, and that truth would set you free.

What you want to do when challenged is to throw down the "God can't be understood, and if you try, that lowers God to human standards", argument. It's really convenient  since it stops all discussion, as if to try to understand God would somehow be blasphemy.

God wants us to know him and to know his word.
John 17:3King James Version (KJV)
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> Our names were written in the Lambs book of Life from the foundation of the world.Yes,He foreknew each one that He would save specifically.
> 
> "I have loved thee with an everlasting love,therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."
> 
> "Nothing can separate us from the love of God,which is in Christ Jesus"



Even so, just because God knows what will be and who will be, doesn't mean that he chooses who will be and what will be.

 God gave dominion of the earth over to man. God works through men, but doesn't orchestrate every thing that man does. Men have free will to either choose to listen to God or choose not to. If God orchestrated everything that happened, then it would be God who is responsible fore every act of man, and God is not responsible for every vile thing men do.


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> What does this mean "to extend and humanize God's message further that what He has already accomplished"?



I’m sure you realize that an attempted complete answer would approach book length so I will attempt a concise sense of the meaning.
God’s revelation of Himself, which is scriptures primary, and possibly sole, function, at times takes the form of figurative language, and at times literal (direct) language while always requiring Spiritual direction in its understanding.  We extend and humanize God’s message when we apply rational carnal techniques of interpretation (extend) resulting in a message that is not theocentric but egocentric (humanize).  While not excluding technical analysis where such is helpful, it recognizes excesses in that area.  I am reminded of a statement made by Luther upon having completed a highly technical grammatical analysis; “This explanation of mine might seem frivolous and vain, did not Paul’s own argument require and evince it.”; pointing out that the second verse previous pointed precisely to the same conclusion he had just proven with many words, references, and logical constructions.  We will never out think God.


----------



## hobbs27

Revelation 3:5 - He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

What's this blotting out?


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> God is the one who humanized his message. He did it so that we could understand it. God didn't send his word to baffle you and prove that he can't be understood. God sent his word so that you would know the truth, and that truth would set you free.
> 
> What you want to do when challenged is to throw down the "God can't be understood, and if you try, that lowers God to human standards", argument. It's really convenient  since it stops all discussion, as if to try to understand God would somehow be blasphemy.
> 
> God wants us to know him and to know his word.
> John 17:3King James Version (KJV)
> 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.



You restate what I said, and claim it as the proof that I am wrong; build a straw man for which I didn't even provide shoe's ... maybe later... but I hope not.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> Even so, just because God knows what will be and who will be, doesn't mean that he chooses who will be and what will be.
> 
> God gave dominion of the earth over to man. God works through men, but doesn't orchestrate every thing that man does. Men have free will to either choose to listen to God or choose not to. If God orchestrated everything that happened, then it would be God who is responsible fore every act of man, and God is not responsible for every vile thing men do.



When it comes to eternal salvation,we had no ability to choose Him.Our dead nature chooses darkness rather than light.
"All we like sheep have gone astray."
"There is none that seeketh after God."
"There is none good,no,not one."

But, when the Holy Spirit quickens,then he which was dead is made to seek God.Without this quickening,none can come.
Jesus told Nicodemus,"unless you are born again,you cannot see the kingdom of heaven."


----------



## Israel

Bama4me said:


> Much of the false Calvinistic thought has been built upon some of these passages in John.  Earlier in this thread, a person stated "I really believe it is unglorifying when we don't proclaim a successful Saviour, who does not lose any that He died for."  It is interesting to me that in this part of John, Jesus clearly indicated one of the apostles (Judas) became lost - a person God had "given Him".
> 
> The "failure" in regards to Christ's sacrifice is NOT in some type of weakness with Christ.  It has to do with people who make the decision to deny Christ.  When people are created with free will, some will choose death - just as some will choose life.  The fact some choose to ignore Christ's work has nothing to do with Christ's power or inabilities - He allows people to walk away from Him if they wish.
> 
> In regards to predestination, the NT does teach it.  What kind of predestination is taught - individual or group?  That is the question.  We are "chosen" in Christ (Ephesians 1:4).  If you allow the bible to comment on "in Christ" from the book of Galatians, you'll see that the being "in Christ" is a matter of choice - and it is a group.  Everyone who is "in Christ" is saved.



Just so you may not be mistaken, which indeed, you may not be, I wouldn't know Calvin, or his writings, except by mention of others. I have _heard_ of him. So, if you think I carry his water, or beat a drum for him...that would be a mistake.


What KJV says thus:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Youngs (which I find awkward, but hewing close) says

who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten.


It is, in some ways, odd to me that Paul, a man who knew well what being chosen meant, (and one would almost have to disregard what is commonly called his conversion experience) somehow is used, through his words to support what seems to me, quite plainly, _none of his experience._

Where is the place Paul engaged his "will" to believe...when almost everywhere he makes plain...it is(was) his will to wipe out (till Damascus road)...everyone that names _that Name_.

Now, one could make the case it is precisely because he is so provoked at _that Name_ as there is presented the mechanism whereby his entrance...by his will in hating THE WILL, is provided.  (But I make no such claim. It would sound too much like a recommendation to hate Jesus...which is already rampant enough.)

And also...if you imagine, in any way, that the "loss" of the son of perdition has not had a profound impact in my mind in examination of God's sovereign will, and also his absolute investment in seeing "the scripture fulfilled", you would, again (if so) be mistaken.
There are sheep, and _there are goats_...but the knowing of this does nothing to secure my end. Neither, indeed...does believing "in election"...except that it might be found of a murderer the relief in knowing "all is out of his own hands" when stain of guilt is revealed.
And this, he might now be free, to tell others.
Bigger shoulders bear, and have borne...all.


It was _not...even Jesus will...that He come._  But how men worship their own will, till stain be found.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> When it comes to eternal salvation,we had no ability to choose Him.Our dead nature chooses darkness rather than light.
> "All we like sheep have gone astray."
> "There is none that seeketh after God."
> "There is none good,no,not one."
> 
> But, when the Holy Spirit quickens,then he which was "dead is made to seek God.Without this quickening,none can come.
> Jesus told Nicodemus,"unless you are born again,you cannot see the kingdom of heaven."



"Our dead nature chooses darkness rather than light."

Have you never read in the psalms " the entrance of thy word giveth light." That's the reason God sent his word and the reason Jesus said " He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."



"All we like sheep have gone astray."
"There is none that seeketh after God."
"There is none good,no,not one."

Yes, but don't stop there! Continue on a few verses and see what Paul is really saying. Paul is saying that yes, under the law none are righteous but:
Romans 3:20-22King James Version (KJV)

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:


Notice what Paul says "unto all and upon all them that believe!" 

Paul does NOT say "unto all who have been predestined for salvation!"

That is exactly why Paul would also say in Romans:
Romans 10:13-14King James Version (KJV)

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?


In conclusion it is clear that yes, we are lost without God but God sent his word to lead us out of darkness and into light. That's why Paul was sent to the Gentiles and why the Apostles preached the Word of God.


----------



## Israel

RH Clark said:


> "Our dead nature chooses darkness rather than light."
> 
> Have you never read in the psalms " the entrance of thy word giveth light." That's the reason God sent his word and the reason Jesus said " He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
> 
> 
> 
> "All we like sheep have gone astray."
> "There is none that seeketh after God."
> "There is none good,no,not one."
> 
> Yes, but don't stop there! Continue on a few verses and see what Paul is really saying. Paul is saying that yes, under the law none are righteous but:
> Romans 3:20-22King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
> 
> 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
> 
> 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
> 
> 
> Notice what Paul says "unto all and upon all them that believe!"
> 
> Paul does NOT say "unto all who have been predestined for salvation!"
> 
> That is exactly why Paul would also say in Romans:
> Romans 10:13-14King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
> 
> 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
> 
> 
> In conclusion it is clear that yes, we are lost without God but God sent his word to lead us out of darkness and into light. That's why Paul was sent to the Gentiles and why the Apostles preached the Word of God.



I think they were told to.
"I go a fishing..." comes to mind.
None went...apart from being sent.
So, was it "Paul's will" he go to the gentiles?


"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." 

One would have to be a scurrilous donkey to believe an "adequate defense" of election does anything to save a soul. The scoring of points are held against a man's account, not to it.
But if this matter of will is so negligible as to mean "there's still a remainder of my own to add to God for his glory..." 

Then one might have to ask, why did the only Man who ever walked in perfect obedience, plead there?

If one believes they are saved by their own "will to believe", I expect they imagine their own...purer than the Lord Jesus'.

But truly, do not believe me. I can refer you to a man who used to be God's helper. But now, all he needs...is help.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> "Our dead nature chooses darkness rather than light."
> 
> Have you never read in the psalms " the entrance of thy word giveth light." That's the reason God sent his word and the reason Jesus said " He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
> 
> 
> 
> "All we like sheep have gone astray."
> "There is none that seeketh after God."
> "There is none good,no,not one."
> 
> Yes, but don't stop there! Continue on a few verses and see what Paul is really saying. Paul is saying that yes, under the law none are righteous but:
> Romans 3:20-22King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
> 
> 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
> 
> 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
> 
> 
> Notice what Paul says "unto all and upon all them that believe!"
> 
> Paul does NOT say "unto all who have been predestined for salvation!"
> 
> That is exactly why Paul would also say in Romans:
> Romans 10:13-14King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
> 
> 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
> 
> 
> In conclusion it is clear that yes, we are lost without God but God sent his word to lead us out of darkness and into light. That's why Paul was sent to the Gentiles and why the Apostles preached the Word of God.



You are misunderstanding these verses to mean that salvation depends on man to preach the word to the lost.But the "word" it's referring to is "The Word"(Jesus).
"In the beginning was 'The Word' and the Word was with God,and the Word was God."

If it was dependant upon man,we would be in a mess.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> You are misunderstanding these verses to mean that salvation depends on man to preach the word to the lost.But the "word" it's referring to is "The Word"(Jesus).
> "In the beginning was 'The Word' and the Word was with God,and the Word was God."
> 
> If it was dependant upon man,we would be in a mess.



No sir, I am not misunderstanding at all. Look at the verses without your preconceived ideas and see. Paul is speaking about men preaching the word. He isn't speaking about Jesus. He  says" How can they hear without a preacher." That is clearly talking about men speaking God's words, and not about the person of Jesus.


No, it's not up to men. The Holy Spirit draws men, men don't draw men. It's the Holy Spirit who speaks to the hearts of men. Jesus said to lift him up and he would draw all men to himself.

Men have to preach the gospel and through God's words men are saved. A perfect example is in Acts 10 when God sent Peter to preach to Cornelius. The angel told Cornelius to send for Peter who would tell him what to do to be saved. Another very important passage in this story is when Peter says " God is no respecter of persons." Your doctrine would have God be exactly that if he chose some for salvation and some for CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredation.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Did Saul convert from hearing a preacher?


----------



## RH Clark

Israel said:


> I think they were told to.
> "I go a fishing..." comes to mind.
> None went...apart from being sent.
> So, was it "Paul's will" he go to the gentiles?
> 
> 
> "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
> 
> One would have to be a scurrilous donkey to believe an "adequate defense" of election does anything to save a soul. The scoring of points are held against a man's account, not to it.
> But if this matter of will is so negligible as to mean "there's still a remainder of my own to add to God for his glory..."
> 
> Then one might have to ask, why did the only Man who ever walked in perfect obedience, plead there?
> 
> If one believes they are saved by their own "will to believe", I expect they imagine their own...purer than the Lord Jesus'.
> 
> But truly, do not believe me. I can refer you to a man who used to be God's helper. But now, all he needs...is help.



I'm sorry, I can't even fathom how your brain works. Your thoughts are shot out in so many directions at once that you are extremely difficult to follow. What was the question again?

A man isn't saved by his own will in any manner. A man is saved by his faith in Christ because of the grace of God. At least that's what my Bible says.

Do you even understand why the sinless one died?

No, it was God's will that Paul go to the gentiles and it's God's will that a man preach. It is also God's will that all be saved, again, that's what my Bible says.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Were the Gentiles separate because they hadn't had a preacher?


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Did Saul convert from hearing a preacher?



The Ethiopian eunuch required Phillip... Didn't he?


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> Did Saul convert from hearing a preacher?



Yes, the best one!


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> Ephesians 2:12
> remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.
> 
> Were the Gentiles separate because they hadn't had a preacher?




They were separate at that time because Jesus had to first come to the House of Israel. God was in covenant with Israel after all, it is only right that they be first. When they rejected God and because they rejected God the Gentiles were grafted in.


----------



## Bama4me

welderguy said:


> Our names were written in the Lambs book of Life from the foundation of the world.Yes,He foreknew each one that He would save specifically.
> 
> "I have loved thee with an everlasting love,therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."
> 
> "Nothing can separate us from the love of God,which is in Christ Jesus"



"So Moses returned to the Lord and said, 'Alas, this people has sinned a great sin. They have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will forgive their sin—but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written.' But the Lord said to Moses, 'Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book'." (Exodus 32:31-33)

"And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Revelation 22:19)

It's pretty clear from the first passage that God can and does "blot people's name out of the book of life"... the cause is man's unforgiven sin.  An example is seen in the second passage - when people "take away from the word of God", their names are removed from the book.

In both instances we see that it's not God's decision, but man's.  God's desire is for every person to be saved (2 Peter 3:9).


----------



## hummerpoo

Dispensations are only required for men to understand God's revelation to be about men.


----------



## Bama4me

Artfuldodger said:


> Did Saul convert from hearing a preacher?



Acts 22:16 indicates that he would have his sins "washed away" when he was baptized.  Since Ananias had been sent to preach to him... yes, a preacher WAS involved in Saul's salvation.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> No sir, I am not misunderstanding at all. Look at the verses without your preconceived ideas and see. Paul is speaking about men preaching the word. He isn't speaking about Jesus. He  says" How can they hear without a preacher." That is clearly talking about men speaking God's words, and not about the person of Jesus.
> 
> 
> No, it's not up to men. The Holy Spirit draws men, men don't draw men. It's the Holy Spirit who speaks to the hearts of men. Jesus said to lift him up and he would draw all men to himself.
> 
> Men have to preach the gospel and through God's words men are saved. A perfect example is in Acts 10 when God sent Peter to preach to Cornelius. The angel told Cornelius to send for Peter who would tell him what to do to be saved. Another very important passage in this story is when Peter says " God is no respecter of persons." Your doctrine would have God be exactly that if he chose some for salvation and some for CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredation.



So which is it?
Men or the Spirit?

....or is it the Spirit through men(at times),but not always through men?

Because,if its gotta be through a man,what about the unborn or the deaf or the mentally ill?

Its the Spirit,however he pleases.
"The wind bloweth where it listeth..."


----------



## Israel

So then...does a man "make himself a believer"? if as you say "it is God's will he be saved...and in another place that a man is saved by his faith in Christ? So, he decided to have "faith in Christ?" He decided...to believe? Or does he believe because he is ordained to?
And feel free to tell me why the sinless one died. I always like to hear about that...it never gets old. (and maybe I don't know, at all, as I aught to)


----------



## Bama4me

Israel said:


> Just so you may not be mistaken, which indeed, you may not be, I wouldn't know Calvin, or his writings, except by mention of others. I have _heard_ of him. So, if you think I carry his water, or beat a drum for him...that would be a mistake.
> 
> 
> What KJV says thus:
> 
> Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
> 
> Youngs (which I find awkward, but hewing close) says
> 
> who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten.
> 
> 
> It is, in some ways, odd to me that Paul, a man who knew well what being chosen meant, (and one would almost have to disregard what is commonly called his conversion experience) somehow is used, through his words to support what seems to me, quite plainly, _none of his experience._
> 
> Where is the place Paul engaged his "will" to believe...when almost everywhere he makes plain...it is(was) his will to wipe out (till Damascus road)...everyone that names _that Name_.
> 
> Now, one could make the case it is precisely because he is so provoked at _that Name_ as there is presented the mechanism whereby his entrance...by his will in hating THE WILL, is provided.  (But I make no such claim. It would sound too much like a recommendation to hate Jesus...which is already rampant enough.)
> 
> And also...if you imagine, in any way, that the "loss" of the son of perdition has not had a profound impact in my mind in examination of God's sovereign will, and also his absolute investment in seeing "the scripture fulfilled", you would, again (if so) be mistaken.
> There are sheep, and _there are goats_...but the knowing of this does nothing to secure my end. Neither, indeed...does believing "in election"...except that it might be found of a murderer the relief in knowing "all is out of his own hands" when stain of guilt is revealed.
> And this, he might now be free, to tell others.
> Bigger shoulders bear, and have borne...all.
> 
> 
> It was _not...even Jesus will...that He come._  But how men worship their own will, till stain be found.



Friend... I'm not trying to be difficult, but I can't quite grasp your point here.  I know you're speaking of election in some way, but not sure the line of reasoning.


----------



## RH Clark

Israel said:


> So then...does a man "make himself a believer"? if as you say "it is God's will he be saved...and in another place that a man is saved by his faith in Christ? So, he decided to have "faith in Christ?" He decided...to believe? Or does he believe because he is ordained to?
> And feel free to tell me why the sinless one died. I always like to hear about that...it never gets old. (and maybe I don't know, at all, as I aught to)



Of coarse it is God who draws men to believe and be saved. I'm sorry that you think God doesn't wish all men to be saved and doesn't draw all men but you are arguing with scripture more than me.

You may very well know why the sinless one died but your convoluted manner of throwing thoughts at random makes one wonder.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> So which is it?
> Men or the Spirit?
> 
> ....or is it the Spirit through men(at times),but not always through men?
> 
> Because,if its gotta be through a man,what about the unborn or the deaf or the mentally ill?
> 
> Its the Spirit,however he pleases.
> "The wind bloweth where it listeth..."



It is always God and always through a man. Why do you think God needed to become a man?


----------



## Bama4me

welderguy said:


> So which is it?
> Men or the Spirit?
> 
> ....or is it the Spirit through men(at times),but not always through men?
> 
> Because,if its gotta be through a man,what about the unborn or the deaf or the mentally ill?
> 
> Its the Spirit,however he pleases.
> "The wind bloweth where it listeth..."



In answer to your first question, it's both.  The word of God (the Spirit's work) is what pricks the heart of man and convicts him of sin (Hebrews 4:12).  Yet, God's word is proclaimed by preachers... that's why 1 Corinthians 1:21 says God saves people through the "folly of preaching".

Concerning your second question, sin is the cause of death - spiritually speaking (Romans 6:23).  Unborn children do not have the capacity to sin, so they're saved.  Likewise, those who are truly mentally ill do not have the capability to reason - thus, they are not guilty of sin.  Not sure where you're going with the deaf - because deaf people normally have the capacity to reason/understand and communicate with someone teaching them God's word.


----------



## welderguy

Bama4me said:


> In answer to your first question, it's both.  The word of God (the Spirit's work) is what pricks the heart of man and convicts him of sin (Hebrews 4:12).  Yet, God's word is proclaimed by preachers... that's why 1 Corinthians 1:21 says God saves people through the "folly of preaching".
> 
> Concerning your second question, sin is the cause of death - spiritually speaking (Romans 6:23).  Unborn children do not have the capacity to sin, so they're saved.  Likewise, those who are truly mentally ill do not have the capability to reason - thus, they are not guilty of sin.  Not sure where you're going with the deaf - because deaf people normally have the capacity to reason/understand and communicate with someone teaching them God's word.



So,if I'm reading you correctly,it sounds like you are saying that if someone doesn't have the capacity to reason then they are sinless?

What about "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
and
"Behold,I was shapen in iniquity,and in sin did my mother conceive me."
and
"There is none righteous;no,not one."


----------



## hobbs27

Israel said:


> And feel free to tell me why the sinless one died. I always like to hear about that...it never gets old. (and maybe I don't know, at all, as I aught to)



I've been studying this. I think you will like it, not to make a certain point, just for your enjoyment: https://theologiainvia.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/de-incarnatione-4/


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> It is always God and always through a man. Why do you think God needed to become a man?



I agree its always God and always through the God-man Christ Jesus.
But it's not always through an earthly man.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> I agree its always God and always through the God-man Christ Jesus.
> But it's not always through an earthly man.



I'm Ok with that, though I might add that it is quite often through an earthly man, though guided and indwelt by the Holy Spirit of coarse.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Revelation 3:5 - He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
> 
> What's this blotting out?



He's saying He will not blot out.Essentially the same thing He said through Paul in Romans 8: "Nothing can separate us from the love of God,in Christ Jesus."

Those in Christ are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.If He loved you with an everlasting love,that will never,ever,ever change forever.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> He's saying He will not blot out.Essentially the same thing He said through Paul in Romans 8: "Nothing can separate us from the love of God,in Christ Jesus."
> 
> Those in Christ are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.If He loved you with an everlasting love,that will never,ever,ever change forever.



I don't think we lose salvation. I also don't think the book of life had anything to do with the New Testament, but if you hold it up as the book that has my name in it, or yours, then there's some explaining to do about the blotting out, which is not just in this verse but many other verses.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> I don't think we lose salvation. I also don't think the book of life had anything to do with the New Testament, but if you hold it up as the book that has my name in it, or yours, then there's some explaining to do about the blotting out, which is not just in this verse but many other verses.



Go ahead and explain it.Im listening.


----------



## Israel

RH Clark said:


> It is always God and always through a man. Why do you think God needed to become a man?


Whence comes need...in God?
What harness will be placed upon Him...to bring him down?


----------



## hobbs27

:





welderguy said:


> Go ahead and explain it.Im listening.



The book of life is\was to be opened at the resurrection and judgment of the dead..correct?

I believe it has been opened and the dead ones judged...I believe there is no more a book but an advocate for us. He is in us and we in Him. Not all, but those that have answered the beckoning call from the Spirit and the Bride, and took of the water of life freely given.


----------



## RH Clark

Israel said:


> Whence comes need...in God?
> What harness will be placed upon Him...to bring him down?



The harness to bring down is only in in your mind. The choice was always God's and made before the foundation of the world I might add.
2 Corinthians 8:9King James Version (KJV)

9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.


God had given authority and dominion of the earth to man. In essence, only a man could fix the situation, yet man had no power to fix anything being subservient to Satan. So God became man, a sinless man not under the power of Satan, but reigning in full authority as a man given authority by God.


----------



## gemcgrew

Bama4me said:


> Likewise, those who are truly mentally ill do not have the capability to reason - thus, they are not guilty of sin.


So there is hope for the Arminian?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> The book of life is\was to be opened at the resurrection and judgment of the dead..correct?
> 
> I believe it has been opened and the dead ones judged...I believe there is no more a book but an advocate for us. He is in us and we in Him. Not all, but those that have answered the beckoning call from the Spirit and the Bride, and took of the water of life freely given.



Well,for the sake of staying on track with the topic of limited atonement,I will forego the urge to debate when the judgement is.


----------



## welderguy

gemcgrew said:


> So there is hope for the Arminian?



That made me laugh right there Gem.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Well,for the sake of staying on track with the topic of limited atonement,I will forego the urge to debate when the judgement is.



Yeah, I'm not really up to it now either. That cool smiley was from my fumbling fingers I didn't even notice it till now..Ive got a couple of books started, one on Babylon and another on church history, so that's where my mind is now anyways... I still think you need to figure out how to explain the blotting out, if you use the list in the book of life as a list of the so called elect..or saved.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Yeah, I'm not really up to it now either. That cool smiley was from my fumbling fingers I didn't even notice it till now..Ive got a couple of books started, one on Babylon and another on church history, so that's where my mind is now anyways... I still think you need to figure out how to explain the blotting out, of you use the list in the book of life as a list of the so called elect..or saved.



I will get back with you on that tomorrow maybe by PM.My daughters car needs a little attention rt now.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> They were separate at that time because Jesus had to first come to the House of Israel. God was in covenant with Israel after all, it is only right that they be first. When they rejected God and because they rejected God the Gentiles were grafted in.



I wonder what it would have been like if Israel hadn't rejected Jesus concerning the Gentiles. Imagine no mystery/secret ever being revealed. Imagine none of the Old Testament prophesies ever coming about. That would have changed a lot about who the real offspring of Abraham would be.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bama4me said:


> It's pretty clear from the first passage that God can and does "blot people's name out of the book of life"... the cause is man's unforgiven sin.  An example is seen in the second passage - when people "take away from the word of God", their names are removed from the book.
> 
> In both instances we see that it's not God's decision, but man's.  God's desire is for every person to be saved (2 Peter 3:9).



Romans 11:21
For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

Cut off from salvation? Name wiped from the Book of Life? Say in ain't so.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Dispensations are only required for men to understand God's revelation to be about men.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bama4me said:


> Acts 22:16 indicates that he would have his sins "washed away" when he was baptized.  Since Ananias had been sent to preach to him... yes, a preacher WAS involved in Saul's salvation.



Do you realize how many individuals have missed out on everlasting life because man didn't make it to their island with the word?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bama4me said:


> Acts 22:16 indicates that he would have his sins "washed away" when he was baptized.  Since Ananias had been sent to preach to him... yes, a preacher WAS involved in Saul's salvation.



A preacher was involved "after" Saul's conversion. Was the preacher himself not elected by God? Ananias didn't just randomly appear where Saul was.


----------



## Israel

RH Clark said:


> The harness to bring down is only in in your mind. The choice was always God's and made before the foundation of the world I might add.
> 2 Corinthians 8:9King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
> 
> 
> God had given authority and dominion of the earth to man. In essence, only a man could fix the situation, yet man had no power to fix anything being subservient to Satan. So God became man, a sinless man not under the power of Satan, but reigning in full authority as a man given authority by God.


yes. 

The foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, the Lord knows who are His.


----------



## Israel

Are believers men seeking to "get to heaven"...or those sent from heaven to ring the dinner bell for their brothers who do not yet know...they too, are to be sent from heaven?


Where does a believer dwell? And upon what?


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> Are believers men seeking to "get to heaven"...or those sent from heaven to ring the dinner bell for their brothers who do not yet know...they too, are to be sent from heaven?
> 
> 
> Where does a believer dwell? And upon what?



Good question. It is not upon scripture for me. It is not on reason or logic. It is not on tradition. And in a strange sort of way it is not on Jesus. It is not on doctrines or even faith.

 This believer lives in the kingdom, it is my only home. This is where I'm fed, work and go to school. But that's me...I know it is not the same for many. And that's OK.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> I’m sure you realize that an attempted complete answer would approach book length so I will attempt a concise sense of the meaning.
> God’s revelation of Himself, which is scriptures primary, and possibly sole, function, at times takes the form of figurative language, and at times literal (direct) language while always requiring Spiritual direction in its understanding.  We extend and humanize God’s message when we apply rational carnal techniques of interpretation (extend) resulting in a message that is not theocentric but egocentric (humanize).  While not excluding technical analysis where such is helpful, it recognizes excesses in that area.  I am reminded of a statement made by Luther upon having completed a highly technical grammatical analysis; “This explanation of mine might seem frivolous and vain, did not Paul’s own argument require and evince it.”; pointing out that the second verse previous pointed precisely to the same conclusion he had just proven with many words, references, and logical constructions.  We will never out think God.


 
Thanks. I could also write a book---but a short one.  Is "think" even the right word? Perhaps there needs to be a balance between thinking and just being.


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> Thanks. I could also write a book---but a short one.  Is "think" even the right word? Perhaps there needs to be a balance between thinking and just being.



Having looked back in the conversation and not having found the word "think", you once again confound me.
(Please help me if I'm mistaken.)

Not knowing where you are, I will none the less take a stab in the dark with something that may or may not be pertinent to your "thought".

The man famous for the axiom "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am" (obviously not confounding or conflating thinking and being) also never doubted the Perfection of God, or His absolute freedom in creating.


----------



## RH Clark

Israel said:


> yes.
> 
> The foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, the Lord knows who are His.



The choice made was that Jesus would die for mankind and what God would do for those who would accept that sacrifice, not who would accept that sacrifice.


----------



## Israel

RH Clark said:


> The choice made was that Jesus would die for mankind and what God would do for those who would accept that sacrifice, not who would accept that sacrifice.


Huh?


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> The choice made was that Jesus would die for mankind and what God would do for those who would accept that sacrifice, not who would accept that sacrifice.



You have to know how absolutely arrogant that statement is.


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> You have to know how absolutely arrogant that statement is.



Why arrogant? No, I don't see it that way. Isn't it even more arrogant to think you were especially chosen when someone else just as good as you wasn't? Isn't that the definition of arrogance? What I think you fail to understand is that no one saves themselves, they simply trust God or choose not to.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> Why arrogant? No, I don't see it that way. Isn't it even more arrogant to think you were especially chosen when someone else just as good as you wasn't? Isn't that the definition of arrogance? What I think you fail to understand is that no one saves themselves, they simply trust God or choose not to.



You claim to know scripture.  I say you have never understood a word.  GOD DOES NOT CHOOSE GOOD PEOPLE!!!!


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> Having looked back in the conversation and not having found the word "think", you once again confound me.
> (Please help me if I'm mistaken.)
> 
> Not knowing where you are, I will none the less take a stab in the dark with something that may or may not be pertinent to your "thought".
> 
> The man famous for the axiom "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am" (obviously not confounding or conflating thinking and being) also never doubted the Perfection of God, or His absolute freedom in creating.




Sorry bros don't mean to confuse you.  "apply rational carnal techniques of interpretation (extend) resulting in a message"I thought involved to think at least in part.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> What I think you fail to understand is that no one saves themselves, they simply trust God or choose not to.


Here is what I see and I hope that you will see it also. Had you said,"What I think you fail to understand is that no one saves themselves", and had you stopped there, then I could have added an Amen! to that. 

But you didn't did you? Is it because you don't believe it?

You continue on with the second part in order to make the first part meaningless. Sometimes the contradiction is not easily seen, just because we can say it. But just because we can say something, does not make it meaningful.

I only point this out because I see it often in the conversation.


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> You claim to know scripture.  I say you have never understood a word.  GOD DOES NOT CHOOSE GOOD PEOPLE!!!!



I could say the same about you, but I will choose to be more civil.

I agree that God does not choose good people. I never said he does. You claim God chooses one and not another. I say that is the most arrogant position of all.

My position is just the opposite. God chose me and will choose you too, if you will simply rely on him instead of yourself. Salvation is for anyone, not just the chosen few.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> Here is what I see and I hope that you will see it also. Had you said,"What I think you fail to understand is that no one saves themselves", and had you stopped there, then I could have added an Amen! to that.
> 
> But you didn't did you? Is it because you don't believe it?
> 
> You continue on with the second part in order to make the first part meaningless. Sometimes the contradiction is not easily seen, just because we can say it. But just because we can say something, does not make it meaningful.
> 
> I only point this out because I see it often in the conversation.



I don't see it as a person saving themselves. I see salvation rather as surrender. A person must surrender their pride and arrogance, even their identity, surrender to the Lord and place all your trust in him alone. No, I don't see it as saving yourself at all. There is nothing I, nor anyone else could do to save our selves. It's surrender, and a cry for mercy.

Did this Publican save himself?
Luke 18:10-14King James Version (KJV)

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> God chose me and will choose you too, if you will simply rely on him instead of yourself. Salvation is for anyone, not just the chosen few.


Here it is again. Your second sentence makes the first sentence meaningless. It is as if you are arguing with yourself.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> Here it is again. Your second sentence makes the first sentence meaningless. It is as if you are arguing with yourself.



No, it's as if you can't see past your own narrow false doctrine.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> No, it's as if you can't see past your own narrow false doctrine.


That is concise.

Thank you!


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> The choice made was that Jesus would die for mankind and what God would do for those who would accept that sacrifice, not who would accept that sacrifice.



First Jesus died for His Father.
To claim it was for mankind is arrogant.
That any man received eternal life is a merciful blessing.

And you can not deny that you have said that anyone who has "accepted" obligated God to their salvation.  That is arrogant.

You repeat God's obligation to accepting men here.



RH Clark said:


> Why arrogant? No, I don't see it that way. Isn't it even more arrogant to think you were especially chosen when someone else just as good as you wasn't? Isn't that the definition of arrogance? What I think you fail to understand is that no one saves themselves, they simple trust God or choose not to.



I have never said that I was chosen.

What I fail to understand is how someone can claim to save themselves, and thereby deny the one to whom they claim allegiance.

Rarely, but there are times when civility is not sufficient.

>>>edit<<<
"A person must surrender their pride and arrogance, even their identity, surrender to the Lord and place all your trust in him alone. "

There it is again.


----------



## hobbs27

13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> 13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.



Please name the one who, of himself, qualified.

You will find them here, but not of themselves:

Jn. 15:16  You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> That is concise.
> 
> Thank you!



No, I was way too harsh and I apologize. It was more from frustration than anger if that makes any difference.


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> First Jesus died for His Father.
> To claim it was for mankind is arrogant.
> That any man received eternal life is a merciful blessing.
> 
> And you can not deny that you have said that anyone who has "accepted" obligated God to their salvation.  That is arrogant.
> 
> You repeat God's obligation to accepting men here.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said that I was chosen.
> 
> What I fail to understand is how someone can claim to save themselves, and thereby deny the one to whom they claim allegiance.
> 
> Rarely, but there are times when civility is not sufficient.
> 
> >>>edit<<<
> "A person must surrender their pride and arrogance, even their identity, surrender to the Lord and place all your trust in him alone. "
> 
> There it is again.



I'm sorry you can't see it like I do. It seems so simple to me.

Again I ask you, did the publican save himself, or did God save him when he humbled himself?


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> I'm sorry you can't see it like I do. It seems so simple to me.
> 
> Again I ask you, did the publican save himself, or did God save him when he humbled himself?



His humility was a fruit of what God had already done.Not the cause of it.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> No, I was way too harsh and I apologize. It was more from frustration than anger if that makes any difference.


Thank you. It is not even an issue between us.

You can delete that post if you'd like and I can delete my post that referenced it.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> I'm sorry you can't see it like I do. It seems so simple to me.
> 
> Again I ask you, did the publican save himself, or did God save him when he humbled himself?



You didn't ask me once; you can't ask me again.  No one ever saved themselves, you claim to know that with one breath and deny it the next.  What makes you think that the Publican was saved at the moment of the passage?  He was justified going out, just as he was when he started to pray, or he would have prayed like the Pharisee. I'm sure you can think he saved himself at that moment, but you have to ignore much to do it.  A wider view would help you understand a lot more.

And I am very thankful that I have not been given to see man as the center of God's revealed activity.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> Thank you. It is not even an issue between us.
> 
> You can delete that post if you'd like and I can delete my post that referenced it.



I'm Ok with anyone knowing my weaknesses and will just leave it at that unless you want me to remove the post.

Thank you as well for your graciousness.


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> You didn't ask me once; you can't ask me again.  No one ever saved themselves, you claim to know that with one breath and deny it the next.  What makes you think that the Publican was saved at the moment of the passage?  He was justified going out, just as he was when he started to pray, or he would have prayed like the Pharisee. I'm sure you can think he saved himself at that moment, but you have to ignore much to do it.  A wider view would help you understand a lot more.
> 
> And I am very thankful that I have not been given to see man as the center of God's revealed activity.



So what is man if not the center of God's revealed activity, just an afterthought? Do you fail to comprehend the magnitude of God's love toward man?


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> His humility was a fruit of what God had already done.Not the cause of it.



I would agree to a point. Yes, his humility was because of what God had done, but my position is that God has done this for everyone.

God has chosen all of humanity for salvation, but sadly not all will receive it.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Please name the one who, of himself, qualified.
> 
> You will find them here, but not of themselves:
> 
> Jn. 15:16  You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.




The verse shows Jesus laid down His life for His friends and us believers. I don't think anyone has said someone qualifies themself for salvation or anyone saves themselves. Those claims by the Calvinist are old and quite boring.

 Irresistible grace...what's your biblical evidence for it, because I think that's the argument here that no one has named.

 I've heard the testimony of a man that said he resisted the drawing to the point God shut him out..I don't if it was true, but he sure told it to be true and he said near his death he knew he had turned away from God's calling and would not make it to heaven.. I felt really sad for him and his family,but if it is true I accept God's will.


----------



## Israel

RH Clark said:


> Of coarse it is God who draws men to believe and be saved. I'm sorry that you think God doesn't wish all men to be saved and doesn't draw all men but you are arguing with scripture more than me.
> 
> You may very well know why the sinless one died but your convoluted manner of throwing thoughts at random makes one wonder.


Perhaps one believes they are _done with wondering?_

Take this if you will...as no more than Paul's wondering, as though his preface of "what if"...is no more than wondering...out loud

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,…

Now in another place. Paul making a similar contention...that God has mercy upon those he chooses, understands where this takes the natural reasoning and asks "Is there unrighteousness with God"...then?

He answers quickly with "God forbid!" He knows what an offense this appears...that God would already know what we work out in time, based upon certain prior things we believe we know. We want to cry out (of ourselves) NOT FAIR...and you must be FAIR!
But mercy received...knows nothing of the sort. It sees the very "fairness" it would demand of God...is the precise thing that must undo mercy...and the recipient knows he dare not ask for "fairness" from God...He will either accept the truth of _no unrighteousness_ in God to the destruction of his own concept of fairness...or abandon mercy. 

He is in the place where the very thing that offends him, that God does not "act out according to his notion of fairness"...is the precise thing that has saved him! That God is God, not him, not subject to any notion, and understanding...and shows mercy to whom He wills...always and only. And if he asks for "his notion" fairness to prevail he must surely be shown to the woodshed.
For he will see in the light any and all argument against the absolute sovereignty of his Father...is not met with explanation...but only "because I am the Dad"...and stripes deeply prove this, when necessary. This above all, for me, first and foremost must always be settled...God answers me in one capacity only...as son, as He alone is Father, and never His advisor.
He saves who he wills, has indeed..."chosen" in Christ, before the ages began.
This involves no presumption of my estate.



"when it pleased God to reveal His son in me..."

And now the obedience of faith, found only in the Son of God, that faith of the Son of God...to obedience (not of man's reason, nor constructed of "acceptable" outcomes to the mind) instructs us to show mercy. For it makes no sense...and makes men wonder...some to discovering...they have been found. Others to spurn and mock...for the making of music whereby a disciple may learn of rejoicing and leaping for joy.
If it's a done deal...why preach? The preaching is a gift to you...not them. You and I do _nothing_ for anyone, but have had all the favor...done to, and for, us.

"But...I like to HELP!"


No...we like to see ourselves as helpers, that's what we like.

Cause then the helpees are just there for "our show". And that's where what we think are the bad things...happen.

"Lord, had you come sooner...our brother would not have died".

It's a surprise to discover Jesus the Christ was not moved at all by the _need to feel like_ a "helper". One moved Him...only.
And does.
The Helper.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> I'm Ok with anyone knowing my weaknesses and will just leave it at that unless you want me to remove the post.
> 
> Thank you as well for your graciousness.


If we deleted all of the posts that showed our weaknesses, there would be nothing left to read.


----------



## RH Clark

Israel said:


> Perhaps one believes they are _done with wondering?_
> 
> Take this if you will...as no more than Paul's wondering, as though his preface of "what if"...is no more than wondering...out loud
> 
> Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
> 
> What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,…
> 
> Now in another place. Paul making a similar contention...that God has mercy upon those he chooses, understands where this takes the natural reasoning and asks "Is there unrighteousness with God"...then?
> 
> He answers quickly with "God forbid!" He knows what an offense this appears...that God would already know what we work out in time, based upon certain prior things we believe we know. We want to cry out (of ourselves) NOT FAIR...and you must be FAIR!
> But mercy received...knows nothing of the sort. It sees the very "fairness" it would demand of God...is the precise thing that must undo mercy...and the recipient knows he dare not ask for "fairness" from God...He will either accept the truth of _no unrighteousness_ in God to the destruction of his own concept of fairness...or abandon mercy.
> 
> He is in the place where the very thing that offends him, that God does not "act out according to his notion of fairness"...is the precise thing that has saved him! That God is God, not him, not subject to any notion, and understanding...and shows mercy to whom He wills...always and only. And if he asks for "his notion" fairness to prevail he must surely be shown to the woodshed.
> For he will see in the light any and all argument against the absolute sovereignty of his Father...is not met with explanation...but only "because I am the Dad"...and stripes deeply prove this, when necessary. This above all, for me, first and foremost must always be settled...God answers me in one capacity only...as son, as He alone is Father, and never His advisor.
> He saves who he wills, has indeed..."chosen" in Christ, before the ages began.
> This involves no presumption of my estate.
> 
> 
> 
> "when it pleased God to reveal His son in me..."
> 
> And now the obedience of faith, found only in the Son of God, that faith of the Son of God...to obedience (not of man's reason, nor constructed of "acceptable" outcomes to the mind) instructs us to show mercy. For it makes no sense...and makes men wonder...some to discovering...they have been found. Others to spurn and mock...for the making of music whereby a disciple may learn of rejoicing and leaping for joy.
> If it's a done deal...why preach? The preaching is a gift to you...not them. You and I do _nothing_ for anyone, but have had all the favor...done to, and for, us.
> 
> "But...I like to HELP!"
> 
> 
> No...we like to see ourselves as helpers, that's what we like.
> 
> Cause then the helpees are just there for "our show". And that's where what we think are the bad things...happen.
> 
> "Lord, had you come sooner...our brother would not have died".
> 
> It's a surprise to discover Jesus the Christ was not moved at all by the _need to feel like_ a "helper". One moved Him...only.
> And does.
> The Helper.



If you read that from Wuest's Greek word studies you would see that it doesn't mean quite what you think it means.

you say
"It's a surprise to discover Jesus the Christ was not moved at all by the _need to feel like_ a "helper". "

But I say read the gospels and you will often see Jesus moved by compassion for those in need.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> So what is man if not the center of God's revealed activity, just an afterthought?


 "In the beginning God created ..."
God is the center of all God's revealed activity.
God doesn't have afterthoughts.




> Do you fail to comprehend the magnitude of God's love toward man?


Do you fail to comprehend the magnitude of God, who would deign to have mercy upon men?


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> The verse shows Jesus laid down His life for His friends and us believers.


Whom He chose. (it's only 2 verses down if you want to find it.)



> I don't think anyone has said someone qualifies themself for salvation or anyone saves themselves. Those claims by the Calvinist are old and quite boring.


 Where did anyone say anything like that not in response to a "man must xxxx to be saved" statement; thus initiating the boredom.

Have you forgotten my definition of a Calvinist: it's someone who has grown tired of explaining what he is not.



> Irresistible grace...what's your biblical evidence for it, because I think that's the argument here that no one has named.


There you go again; I'm not interested.

>>>edit<<< Unlike God I have afterthoughts.  Not in defense of anything, just something I find interesting.  Who defined, or started, the 5 points currently known by the acronyn TULIP?  It was the followers of Jacobus Arminius (Remonstrants).  I guess they are still stirring things up and blaming the other guy.



> I've heard the testimony of a man that said he resisted the drawing to the point God shut him out..I don't if it was true, but he sure told it to be true and he said near his death he knew he had turned away from God's calling and would not make it to heaven.. I felt really sad for him and his family,but if it is true I accept God's will.


Not familiar.


----------



## welderguy

I just need one question answered by someone if you would.

How can such a loving God,who loves everyone(as some have said),with an everlasting,incomprehensible to the mortal mind,infinite love...how can He allow even one to be separated from His love and perish?

Because that is the end result of those who do not have eternal life.

I don't know that god.The God I know finished the work of redemption and secured His redeemed possession and keeps His promise that nothing will ever separate Him from those that He redeemed.


----------



## Artfuldodger

How can that god depend on man to spread his Word to the ends of the world in order that "all" who will believe will gain eternal life?
Think of the poor souls we missed already. Will we be punished because we let a good many of them die?

God is no respecter of man. Maybe that explains why it doesn't matter if we reach them or not. Maybe that explains why the Gentiles were once without God and stranger to the promises.

Who has God promised salvation to?


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> How can that god depend on man to spread his Word to the ends of the world in order that "all" who will believe will gain eternal life?
> Think of the poor souls we missed already. Will we be punished because we let a good many of them die?
> 
> God is no respecter of man. Maybe that explains why it doesn't matter if we reach them or not. Maybe that explains why the Gentiles were once without God and stranger to the promises.
> 
> Who has God promised salvation to?



You mistake the meaning of no "respecter of man". it does not mean that God has nothing to do with man or disregards him, just the opposite. Look at the context of the scripture to see the meaning. Peter had just seen the Holy Spirit come upon the gentiles after God had shown him in a dream that what God makes clean is clean. peter responds that God is no respecter of persons, meaning that God regards the gentiles just as his chosen people the Jews.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> I just need one question answered by someone if you would.
> 
> How can such a loving God,who loves everyone(as some have said),with an everlasting,incomprehensible to the mortal mind,infinite love...how can He allow even one to be separated from His love and perish?
> 
> Because that is the end result of those who do not have eternal life.
> 
> I don't know that god.The God I know finished the work of redemption and secured His redeemed possession and keeps His promise that nothing will ever separate Him from those that He redeemed.



How can that same loving God that loves everyone pick some for salvation and just randomly pick others for he--?

The God you know is the God who looses no redeemed. It's just that some won't accept redemption. I suppose those who refuse God were never really his anyway but I do not see God as someone who randomly passes judgment on some and forgiveness on others. I see him as someone willing to grant forgiveness to all.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 1:16 
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

The promise, the thing that has never changed. Why the Jew first? If the offspring has always been the elect?

Romans 8:28
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

First the Jew ant then the Gentile but the promise has never changed?

Romans 11:15
For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Who has salvation always been promised to?

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

The Gentiles excluded from the promise at that time, yet they were the ones supposedly the seed was promised too all along. The true believers. The chosen? Heirs to the covenants of the promise?


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> "In the beginning God created ..."
> God is the center of all God's revealed activity.
> God doesn't have afterthoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you fail to comprehend the magnitude of God, who would deign to have mercy upon men?



Man is not some vermin that God grants grace to. Man is God's creation, his offspring, his children. Jesus brought the revolutionary concept of God as Father to the world. the Pharisee thought it blasphemy to speak of God as Father, as if God could regard man. You seem to feel the same way, but not only is God Father, but Abba, daddy.

To think that God does not regard his children is simply inconceivable. Have you actually met my daddy?


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 1:16
> For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
> 
> The promise, the thing that has never changed. Why the Jew first? If the offspring has always been the elect?
> 
> Romans 8:28
> And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
> 
> First the Jew ant then the Gentile but the promise has never changed?
> 
> Romans 11:15
> For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
> 
> Who has salvation always been promised to?
> 
> Ephesians 2:12
> remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.
> 
> The Gentiles excluded from the promise at that time, yet they were the ones supposedly the seed was promised too all along. The true believers. The chosen? Heirs to the covenants of the promise?



The promise has always been to Christ. Read Galatians 3. He saith not to seeds as of many but to thy seed which is Christ. Redemption is always in Christ and if you belong to Christ then you are the seed of Abraham and an heir of the promise. Neither Jew nor Gentile mean anything, but it is Christ who is all in all. There is no salvation outside Christ. All who are saved are one with Christ, not Jew, Gentile, or even male or female, but one, which is Christ.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> How can that same loving God that loves everyone pick some for salvation and just randomly pick others for he--?
> 
> The God you know is the God who looses no redeemed. It's just that some won't accept redemption. I suppose those who refuse God were never really his anyway but I do not see God as someone who randomly passes judgment on some and forgiveness on others. I see him as someone willing to grant forgiveness to all.



OK that explains God being no respecter of man. What about the verses where God says salvation is not based on works? Doesn't it boil down to the same thing? If God doesn't choose us based on our __________, what does he use to choose?

Example;
Romans 11:31-36
31so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.33Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR?35Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

What wisdom or knowledge did God use to blind Israel so that they would be disobedient so that God could show mercy on us? That the Gentile would no longer be strangers to the covenants of the promises, without hope, and without God?
What kind of a loving God would make people strangers to the covenants of promise, without hope and without God?
What kind of a loving God would blind his own people to make his plan come about? What kind of a God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and doesn't base this on anything the man wills or dies?
I could go on and on.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> The promise has always been to Christ. Read Galatians 3. He saith not to seeds as of many but to thy seed which is Christ. Redemption is always in Christ and if you belong to Christ then you are the seed of Abraham and an heir of the promise. Neither Jew nor Gentile mean anything, but it is Christ who is all in all. There is no salvation outside Christ. All who are saved are one with Christ, not Jew, Gentile, or even male or female, but one, which is Christ.



Then this promise has always been the one's the Father has given to Christ. The true heirs of the promise have always been who they have always been. Whoever was promised to the one seed.

If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Again, who was the promise to? 
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.

Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> Man is not some vermin that God grants grace to. Man is God's creation, his offspring, his children. Jesus brought the revolutionary concept of God as Father to the world. the Pharisee thought it blasphemy to speak of God as Father, as if God could regard man. You seem to feel the same way, but not only is God Father, but Abba, daddy.
> 
> To think that God does not regard his children is simply inconceivable. Have you actually met my daddy?



The Pharisee's took God and His promises for granted, and Christ's attitude toward them reflected His Father's.  Do you mirror the Pharisee's.

I have met God, up close and personal.  He is awesome, my relationship with Him reflects that awe.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Galatians 4:23
His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

Is this where God intervened to make his Seed? When did he bow out? After making Abraham's Seed? When did God's divine promise change to include anyone other than whom he lead to his Seed?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 1:16
> For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
> 
> The promise, the thing that has never changed. Why the Jew first? If the offspring has always been the elect?



Just keep reading, how many times have I said, effectively, you ask too many questions, and don't do enough reading?

Rm. 3:1,2

I'm sure you can take it from there.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> Man is not some vermin that God grants grace to. Man is God's creation, his offspring, his children. Jesus brought the revolutionary concept of God as Father to the world. the Pharisee thought it blasphemy to speak of God as Father, as if God could regard man. You seem to feel the same way, but not only is God Father, but Abba, daddy.
> 
> To think that God does not regard his children is simply inconceivable. Have you actually met my daddy?



Why not believe in  universal reconciliation? If every man is God's creation, created in his image, and brought back into that image by the death of Christ?
I can't think of anything my children could do to make me not love them. We can't know or understand how God blinded the Jews or what he means when he says "all Israel will be saved."


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Just keep reading, how many times have I said, effectively, you ask too many questions, and don't do enough reading?
> 
> Rm. 3:1,2
> 
> I'm sure you can take it from there.



I've read it, still doesn't explain that at that time Gentiles were without hope and without God. It still doesn't explain that Israel's blindness and rejection brought reconciliation to the Gentiles.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> I've read it, still doesn't explain that at that time Gentiles were without hope and without God. It still doesn't explain that Israel's blindness and rejection brought reconciliation to the Gentiles.



My sense is that you haven't gotten the idea.  Try Ps. 46:10.  If you go to your preferred commenter, read carefully.


----------



## Israel

RH Clark said:


> The promise has always been to Christ. Read Galatians 3. He saith not to seeds as of many but to thy seed which is Christ. Redemption is always in Christ and if you belong to Christ then you are the seed of Abraham and an heir of the promise. Neither Jew nor Gentile mean anything, but it is Christ who is all in all. There is no salvation outside Christ. All who are saved are one with Christ, not Jew, Gentile, or even male or female, but one, which is Christ.



The foundation of God stand sure, having this seal, the Lord knows who are His.

As for the referencing to commentaries, I am sure some find many comforts in them, but I must say, for me, not so much. Never sensed being "led" to them. Or led by them.
At least most of them (as I know) maintain an eponymous title. Therefore a man might have some entrance into this with understanding

Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

One may choose of the few I know...of Henry, this fellow Wuest, and WOW, I just found a site that lists over a hundred a man could peruse
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/

and again, most are plain enough to have some man's name attached.

I don't doubt each felt qualified, and maybe even the need to feel like they could help.

After all, it is extremely rare, unique one could even say, to find a man who admits "of myself, I can do nothing".
Unless of course to a one that does not appear as the truth, in which case I am sure there are more than enough  too willing to correct that.

Since at least one other brother has maintained (though I am led to believe in refutation of God's election) that even a "chosen one" was chosen to be lost..."that the scripture be fulfilled"



> Much of the false Calvinistic thought has been built upon some of these passages in John. Earlier in this thread, a person stated "I really believe it is unglorifying when we don't proclaim a successful Saviour, who does not lose any that He died for." It is interesting to me that in this part of John, Jesus clearly indicated one of the apostles (Judas) became lost - a person God had "given Him".




Though this quote fails to include "that the scripture be fulfilled", to most of us, I assume, it is not unfamiliar as "the reason". One ordained to be lost, due to the necessity of scripture being fulfilled.

Knowing that the scripture (do we know, do I know?) that there are sheep...and there are goats? (and as said, the simple "knowing" of this does not indicate to a man in which camp he is...only that they _are_)

Some then are ordained to be sheep...some goats. Some for entrance, some for departure. Will that be "broken"? Or fulfilled?

Again, as the seeming subtlety seems lost, though it be no subtlety at all, some are sure "God owed them something"...the others were quite surprised at their reception.

You know one of the things I really love about Paul? This "great" apostle, this thundering voice down through the ages...over whom so many have labored and strived to make clear, whose words are repeated daily in a gazillion venues? And have been over thousands of years.

"and I think that I also have the Spirit of God"


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Whom He chose. (it's only 2 verses down if you want to find it.)
> 
> Where did anyone say anything like that not in response to a "man must xxxx to be saved" statement; thus initiating the boredom.
> 
> Have you forgotten my definition of a Calvinist: it's someone who has grown tired of explaining what he is not.
> 
> 
> There you go again; I'm not interested.
> 
> >>>edit<<< Unlike God I have afterthoughts.  Not in defense of anything, just something I find interesting.  Who defined, or started, the 5 points currently known by the acronyn TULIP?  It was the followers of Jacobus Arminius (Remonstrants).  I guess they are still stirring things up and blaming the other guy.
> 
> 
> Not familiar.



If the Spirit draws...one must respond
 It's not called a dragging, but a drawing, an invitation.

Here's a biblical example of accepting the drawing.

Rev.22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

I see two actions...come and take, while the Spirit invites and to ( Whosoever Will)

 Forgive me for referring to your soteriology as Calvinism, it was only for a lack of a better word, and if you will name it I will know what to call it. I thought of pre destinator..but that sounded too negative. I have friends that believe as you do and they don't find the term Calvinist to be negative.

.


----------



## Artfuldodger

To whom were the covenants of the promise given? 

Ephesians 2:12
 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Why were the Gentiles excluded?

Ephesians 3:5-6
which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.6This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

Yet nothing as for as God electing has changed. God has always chosen or elected. Yet Paul is trying to convince me that he held some sort of mystery/secret revealed to him. That he himself became a minister and received some sort of divine insight that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
But, but Ephesians 2:12 says they were without hope and without God. 

Romans 11 tells us the transgressions of the Jews meant riches for the world. Their rejection brought reconciliation to the world. Jewish branches broken off and Gentile branches grafted in.

So again I ask, who were the covenants of promise made?


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> How can that same loving God that loves everyone pick some for salvation and just randomly pick others for he--?
> 
> The God you know is the God who looses no redeemed. It's just that some won't accept redemption. I suppose those who refuse God were never really his anyway but I do not see God as someone who randomly passes judgment on some and forgiveness on others. I see him as someone willing to grant forgiveness to all.



I think you missed my point.He does NOT love everyone.That's why.

You are the one claiming He loves everyone.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ephesians 3:2
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
or
assuming, by the way, that you know God gave me the special responsibility of extending his grace to you Gentiles.

Maybe this special and divine thing Paul had going on was only to Pagan worshipping Gentiles.

Galatians 4:8-9
 8However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?

What part did Paul play in delivering the Gospel to the world? What part did this gospel play in leading or drawing individuals to salvation?
Does God indeed use men to make his drawing come forth? Can we think of other men God has used to make his plan come forth?
Imagine lost souls depending on men to tell them about Jesus. Maybe God will make sure all of his children will hear the Word through a man.
After all, salvation came through a man. God likes using man.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> I think you missed my point.He does NOT love everyone.That's why.
> 
> You are the one claiming He loves everyone.



Yes, because God so loved the WORLD that he gave his only son that WHOSOEVER believes in him can have eternal life.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> Yes, because God so loved the WORLD that he gave his only son that WHOSOEVER believes in him can have eternal life.



So,again,if this means Jesus loves and died for everyone,how can He let any of them perish?
That just does not jive with other scripture.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> OK that explains God being no respecter of man. What about the verses where God says salvation is not based on works? Doesn't it boil down to the same thing? If God doesn't choose us based on our __________, what does he use to choose?
> 
> Example;
> Romans 11:31-36
> 31so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.33Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR?35Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
> 
> What wisdom or knowledge did God use to blind Israel so that they would be disobedient so that God could show mercy on us? That the Gentile would no longer be strangers to the covenants of the promises, without hope, and without God?
> What kind of a loving God would make people strangers to the covenants of promise, without hope and without God?
> What kind of a loving God would blind his own people to make his plan come about? What kind of a God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and doesn't base this on anything the man wills or dies?
> I could go on and on.



Salvation is not based on works or on election. Salvation is based on faith. The scripture says Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Abraham's faith in God was counted as righteousness, perfect right standing with God, not based on works or promise but on faith.

God didn't just blind his people so they wouldn't receive Christ. God's people rejected Christ and the result of that rejection was a punishment of blindness. When Israel rejected Christ, God turned to the gentile. I am sure God knew what the end result would be ,but it was necessary that the people of covenant be presented salvation first.

God didn't make anyone strangers to the covenants of promise. The whole world was doomed because of Adam's sin, without God, and without hope, and God searched for someone who he could make covenant with. God found that man in Abraham. God wasn't trying to exclude anyone. Through that covenant with Abraham God brought salvation to the entire world.

This covenant is one entered into by faith. It isn't based on blood line, or election. That's why you see in Gal.4 that the covenant was to the child of promise. That Child was born of faith, when a child couldn't be born naturally. Gal 4 is signifying that the promise is to the child of faith, the one who is born of promise of God's word and not naturally. All who enter into the covenant enter in by faith in God's word.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> So,again,if this means Jesus loves and died for everyone,how can He let any of them perish?
> That just does not jive with other scripture.



It does if you look at it in the correct light. All those who trust in God, have faith in him for salvation, are given to Jesus and he looses none of them. Jesus is referred to as the mediator between God and man. Jesus looses none because even when those who have cried out to God for salvation do again what deserves death, Jesus says to God that he has paid the price for them. They deserve death but Jesus has already died to pay for what they deserve.

Do you have a particular scripture that seems troublesome to this concept?


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> Salvation is not based on works or on election. Salvation is based on faith. The scripture says Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Abraham's faith in God was counted as righteousness, perfect right standing with God, not based on works or promise but on faith.
> 
> God didn't just blind his people so they wouldn't receive Christ. God's people rejected Christ and the result of that rejection was a punishment of blindness. When Israel rejected Christ, God turned to the gentile. I am sure God knew what the end result would be ,but it was necessary that the people of covenant be presented salvation first.
> 
> God didn't make anyone strangers to the covenants of promise. The whole world was doomed because of Adam's sin, without God, and without hope, and God searched for someone who he could make covenant with. God found that man in Abraham. God wasn't trying to exclude anyone. Through that covenant with Abraham God brought salvation to the entire world.
> 
> This covenant is one entered into by faith. It isn't based on blood line, or election. That's why you see in Gal.4 that the covenant was to the child of promise. That Child was born of faith, when a child couldn't be born naturally. Gal 4 is signifying that the promise is to the child of faith, the one who is born of promise of God's word and not naturally. All who enter into the covenant enter in by faith in God's word.



But faith is a gift from God.And He doesn't give it to all people.

2 Thessalonians 3:2
2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.


----------



## Artfuldodger

OK, but it still took Israel's rejection for God to turn to the Gentile. How did this change how those who were promised to the Seed?


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> If the Spirit draws...one must respond
> It's not called a dragging, but a drawing, an invitation.


I see what you are saying Hobbs. Paul was invited out of the temple and into the courtyard.

"And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut." Acts 21:30

The same word is used in Acts 21:30 and John 6:44.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

What did it take to include them into citizenship? Faith? Were they always able to have hope and God through faith?
If so then what is Romans 11 telling us about first the Jew and then the Gentile. About natural branches being broken off to allow the Gentiles to be grafted in?


----------



## hobbs27

gemcgrew said:


> I see what you are saying Hobbs. Paul was invited out of the temple and into the courtyard.
> 
> "And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut." Acts 21:30
> 
> The same word is used in Acts 21:30 and John 6:44.
> 
> Thanks for bringing that to my attention.



Yes, and we all know you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 The drawing , leading , or even dragging to the water of life, requires a person to take of it...freely.


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> Yes, and we all know you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
> 
> The drawing , leading , or even dragging to the water of life, requires a person to take of it...freely.


Yes. And when they took hold of Paul, he freely moved to the courtyard.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> But faith is a gift from God.And He doesn't give it to all people.
> 
> 2 Thessalonians 3:2
> 2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.



Yes, faith is a fruit of the Spirit, a gift of God. Remember that it is the Holy Spirit that draws men to God. When a man opens up, turns to God, seeks God, abandons trust in himself, that man allows the Spirit in to himself. God gives the faith but the man allows God. This is the gift of free will, it allows a man to reject God or receive Him.

It is a wonderful gift when looked at in the correct light. It lets God have children who choose to love him, and without a choice there can be no true love. How could true love exist without a choice to hate?


----------



## Bama4me

welderguy said:


> But faith is a gift from God.And He doesn't give it to all people.
> 
> 2 Thessalonians 3:2
> 2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.



Please show the Scripture that indicates that faith is given by God to people... and please be very specific.  As in, cite the passage that says exactly that, because 2 Thessalonians 3:2 does not.


----------



## Bama4me

gemcgrew said:


> Yes. And when they took hold of Paul, he freely moved to the courtyard.



Another nice one gem... as one of God's elect who doesn't believe in free will, I suppose it's God who causes you to consistently belittle others in these threads?


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> Yes, faith is a fruit of the Spirit, a gift of God. Remember that it is the Holy Spirit that draws men to God. When a man opens up, turns to God, seeks God, abandons trust in himself, that man allows the Spirit in to himself. God gives the faith but the man allows God. This is the gift of free will, it allows a man to reject God or receive Him.
> 
> It is a wonderful gift when looked at in the correct light. It lets God have children who choose to love him, and without a choice there can be no true love. How could true love exist without a choice to hate?



You've got it backwards."We love Him because He first loved us."
And then there's "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me..."
Not "might come to me."

Then there's Jer.31:3 "I have loved the with an everlasting love,therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee".

And John 6:39
And Rom.8:38

Those are a few of many.

Point is,if God loved you first,He will always love you and He will not let you be separated from Him ever.These verses establish that.

But the fact also remains that there will be some who are eternally separated from God.If you need me to I can show you that also.


----------



## Bama4me

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you realize how many individuals have missed out on everlasting life because man didn't make it to their island with the word?





Artfuldodger said:


> A preacher was involved "after" Saul's conversion. Was the preacher himself not elected by God? Ananias didn't just randomly appear where Saul was.



Your second post answered the first.  Your assumption in the first is that people "missed out", but there's not way to know that.  The stories of Acts shows that God works via people to share the gospel message to mankind - had Ananias not gone, I'm sure Saul would have heard from another messenger.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Those claims ... are old and quite boring.
> 
> Irresistible grace...what's your biblical evidence for it, because I think that's the argument here that no one has named.





hummerpoo said:


> There you go again; I'm not interested.
> 
> >>>edit<<< Unlike God I have afterthoughts.  Not in defense of anything, just something I find interesting.  Who defined, or started, the 5 points currently known by the acronyn TULIP?  It was the followers of Jacobus Arminius (Remonstrants).  I guess they are still stirring things up and blaming the other guy.





hobbs27 said:


> If the Spirit draws...one must respond
> It's not called a dragging, but a drawing, an invitation.
> 
> Here's a biblical example of accepting the drawing.
> 
> Rev.22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
> 
> 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
> 
> I see two actions...come and take, while the Spirit invites and to ( Whosoever Will)



Let all here witness that I have previously stated my lack of interest in the rehashing the contentious and boring issue of the strength of God’s draw on His elect (Jn:6:44); and the hundreds of years old habit of the followers of old Jake of insisting that those philosophical and sentimental points on which they draw will not lose the day this time, even though they were proven not to be scriptural, and were unacceptable, in the early 17th century as they are today.

But I am determined that, although I be pursued by a crowd of angry merchants (Act. 16:19), I will be to them more resistant than 153 large fish in a net (Jn. 21:11); more clever than a poor man being pursued by the debtors court (Jm. 2:6), and I will hold my noncombatant position, even though a whole city try to move me (Act. 21:30).


----------



## welderguy

Bama4me said:


> Please show the Scripture that indicates that faith is given by God to people... and please be very specific.  As in, cite the passage that says exactly that, because 2 Thessalonians 3:2 does not.



Eph.2:8-9


----------



## hobbs27

St. Clement. “Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary.”

Justin Martyr “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it is predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.”

Just some thoughts from early church leaders.


----------



## Bama4me

welderguy said:


> So,if I'm reading you correctly,it sounds like you are saying that if someone doesn't have the capacity to reason then they are sinless?
> 
> What about "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
> and
> "Behold,I was shapen in iniquity,and in sin did my mother conceive me."
> and
> "There is none righteous;no,not one."



In answer to your first question, yes. Your quotations that are cited are taken out of context.

Romans 3:23 was written in the context of the Jewish and Gentile conversation.  The intent of Romans 3:23 was not to show that EVERY person in the human race is guilty of sin, but that both the Jews and the Gentiles (as a race of people) were guilty of sin.  

Psalm 59:5... the slant you provide for the passage is but one possible meaning.  It's more likely, though, that the things David says aren't meant to be taken literally - they were written at a low point in his life and reflect intentional exaggeration.  In addition, his mother is referenced there as well.

The same idea about Romans 3:23 applies to Romans 3:10.

There's one thing I would like to ask in this line of thought. In Matthew 18:3 and Matthew 19:14, Jesus commended the traits of little children.  IF children are brought forth as sinners from birth and are capable of no goodness at all, why did Jesus commend them as examples for believers?

In addition, could you explain to me how an infant is able to be tempted, enticed by his own desire, and then sins (James 1:13-15)?  Also, how a person who doesn't understand "right and wrong" is able to go through the same process?  Maybe give an example or two?  Thanks.


----------



## Bama4me

welderguy said:


> Eph.2:8-9



"The gift of God" modifies "you have been saved"... not faith.


----------



## Bama4me

Artfuldodger said:


> OK that explains God being no respecter of man. What about the verses where God says salvation is not based on works?



Could you tell me again about a salvation that doesn't have anything to do with works?

* 1 Peter 1:17 - And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile.

* Romans 2:6-8:  He will render to each one according to his works; to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

* Matthew 12:36 - I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak...

* 2 Corinthians 5:10 - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

* Revelation 20:11-12:  Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ephesians 2:8-9
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Maybe salvation is not based on works but God's judgment is.


----------



## Bama4me

Artfuldodger said:


> Ephesians 2:8-9
> 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.



Then how do you reconcile the contradiction between the two sets of passages?  Tell me more about how God's judgment and salvation aren't connected.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I don't understand judgment and salvation being connected any more than I understand this;

Romans 11:28-33
 28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.…30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.33Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR?…


----------



## Bama4me

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't understand judgment and salvation being connected any more than I understand this;
> 
> Romans 11:28-33
> 28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.…30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.33Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR?…



How can salvation and judgment not be linked together?  Multiple passages clearly say that our eternal reward is determined by our works.  Also, in Revelation 2:5, Jesus stated He would disown the Ephesian church if they didn't "return to their first works".  

BTW, if you want the word "saved" in a passage that says something similar, try James 2:14-26.

Again, how can we harmonize passages that say "salvation is apart from works" with passages that say "salvation is based upon works"?


----------



## welderguy

Bama4me said:


> In answer to your first question, yes. Your quotations that are cited are taken out of context.
> 
> Romans 3:23 was written in the context of the Jewish and Gentile conversation.  The intent of Romans 3:23 was not to show that EVERY person in the human race is guilty of sin, but that both the Jews and the Gentiles (as a race of people) were guilty of sin.
> 
> Psalm 59:5... the slant you provide for the passage is but one possible meaning.  It's more likely, though, that the things David says aren't meant to be taken literally - they were written at a low point in his life and reflect intentional exaggeration.  In addition, his mother is referenced there as well.
> 
> The same idea about Romans 3:23 applies to Romans 3:10.
> 
> There's one thing I would like to ask in this line of thought. In Matthew 18:3 and Matthew 19:14, Jesus commended the traits of little children.  IF children are brought forth as sinners from birth and are capable of no goodness at all, why did Jesus commend them as examples for believers?
> 
> In addition, could you explain to me how an infant is able to be tempted, enticed by his own desire, and then sins (James 1:13-15)?  Also, how a person who doesn't understand "right and wrong" is able to go through the same process?  Maybe give an example or two?  Thanks.



1 John 1:8
"If we say we have no sin,we deceive ourselves,and the truth is not in us."

And Jesus wasn't saying children were sinless.He's referring to the trusting dependance they have.

"By one man sin entered into the world ....for that all have sinned."Rom.5:12


----------



## Israel

Bama4me said:


> In answer to your first question, yes. Your quotations that are cited are taken out of context.
> 
> Romans 3:23 was written in the context of the Jewish and Gentile conversation.  The intent of Romans 3:23 was not to show that EVERY person in the human race is guilty of sin, but that both the Jews and the Gentiles (as a race of people) were guilty of sin.
> 
> Psalm 59:5... the slant you provide for the passage is but one possible meaning.  It's more likely, though, that the things David says aren't meant to be taken literally - they were written at a low point in his life and reflect intentional exaggeration.  In addition, his mother is referenced there as well.
> 
> The same idea about Romans 3:23 applies to Romans 3:10.
> 
> There's one thing I would like to ask in this line of thought. In Matthew 18:3 and Matthew 19:14, Jesus commended the traits of little children.  IF children are brought forth as sinners from birth and are capable of no goodness at all, why did Jesus commend them as examples for believers?In addition, could you explain to me how an infant is able to be tempted, enticed by his own desire, and then sins (James 1:13-15)?  Also, how a person who doesn't understand "right and wrong" is able to go through the same process?  Maybe give an example or two?  Thanks.



I believe that's a great question.
I have often considered Paul's saying of this.:

"I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

Because I know it to be true.

How deep shall we go?


----------



## Bama4me

welderguy said:


> 1 John 1:8
> "If we say we have no sin,we deceive ourselves,and the truth is not in us."
> 
> And Jesus wasn't saying children were sinless.He's referring to the trusting dependance they have.
> 
> "By one man sin entered into the world ,so that all have sinned."(Hebrews)



You consistently ignore the context of a passage in citing these verses.  1 John was written to Christians who had an ability to (1) walk in the light, (2) confess sins, and (3) not practice the truth.  Please tell me how an infant can do all these things... or someone who has no ability to reason?

If John had been writing this letter to people of the world, I'd agree with your assessment, but it's not.  Again, you didn't answer my earlier question.  Tell me how an infant or a person unable to reason can be tempted and give in to evil desire.

My point with the children is this... you and others claim a person is depraved when they enter this world.  You say this is due to "inherited sin".  Part of this depravity is that man can do nothing good until the Spirit saves him.  Yet, Jesus commends actions of (depraved) children and says those actions must be imitated if one wants to enter the kingdom of God.


----------



## Bama4me

Israel said:


> I believe that's a great question.
> I have often considered Paul's saying of this.:
> 
> "I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
> 
> Because I know it to be true.
> 
> How deep shall we go?



Seems Paul was saying that at some point prior to being accountable to the law of Moses, that he didn't sin.  When he became "of age" to understand, he became accountable to obedience to the law - which specific what sin was and wasn't.  At that point, because he couldn't keep the law perfectly, he became a sinner... not through birth, but via his imperfections.


----------



## welderguy

Bama4me said:


> You consistently ignore the context of a passage in citing these verses.  1 John was written to Christians who had an ability to (1) walk in the light, (2) confess sins, and (3) not practice the truth.  Please tell me how an infant can do all these things... or someone who has no ability to reason?
> 
> If John had been writing this letter to people of the world, I'd agree with your assessment, but it's not.  Again, you didn't answer my earlier question.  Tell me how an infant or a person unable to reason can be tempted and give in to evil desire.
> 
> My point with the children is this... you and others claim a person is depraved when they enter this world.  You say this is due to "inherited sin".  Part of this depravity is that man can do nothing good until the Spirit saves him.  Yet, Jesus commends actions of (depraved) children and says those actions must be imitated if one wants to enter the kingdom of God.



Psalm 58
Read the whole thing so you can get the whole context.


----------



## hobbs27

Bama4me said:


> Seems Paul was saying that at some point prior to being accountable to the law of Moses, that he didn't sin.  When he became "of age" to understand, he became accountable to obedience to the law - which specific what sin was and wasn't.  At that point, because he couldn't keep the law perfectly, he became a sinner... not through birth, but via his imperfections.



.....And because of that imputed sin he died.
 Spiritually.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> OK, but it still took Israel's rejection for God to turn to the Gentile. How did this change how those who were promised to the Seed?



From the works of a friend:

"The basic flow of Pauline theology in Romans 9-11 was about the bringing together of Jew/Gentile into the "one body" (Eph. 4:5). 

It was the work of the "remnant" (Rom. 11:5) through the eschatological ministry of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:13), to reveal the "mystery of God" (Eph. 3:9, 10) to bring in the Gentiles through grafting them into the "root" of Israel's "promises" (Rom. 11:16-18 15:8). Salvation was "of the Jews" (John 4:22). Christ had come to "save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21) as the sacrificial "lamb of God" (John 1:29).  Jesus as Israel's Messiah is the very heart of the message of Biblical fulfillment. 

Then the "hope of Israel" (Acts 28:20) became the "one hope" (Eph. 4:4-6) of the gospel that was the "power of God for salvation" (Rom. 1:16).  This very "hope" was consummated at the "ends of the ages" (Heb. 9:26). 

The Gentiles had entered into Israel's "spiritual things" (Rom. 15:27) through the "baptism into His [Christ's] death" (Rom. 6:3-5) and those became fellow partakers of the "promises made to the fathers" (Rom. 15:8). 

In the end, "all Israel" was saved (delivered) (Rom. 11:26), which included the "fullness of the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:25). The ONLY promises were those made through Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3) and thus the Gentiles had entered into the "root" of those "promises" in order to receive them.

When we understand the ebb and flow of redemptive history as seen through the eyes of the apostle Paul in the book of Romans, only then can we appreciate fully the depth, beauty and the riches of God's goodness.  We now live in the reality of the finished work of God through the Cross that was brought to completion in 70 CE" -- Larry Siegle


----------



## Bama4me

welderguy said:


> Psalm 58
> Read the whole thing so you can get the whole context.



Trying to prove something from the Psalms alone is like trying to prove something today from a song book. Just like our songs today, Psalms is filled with hyperbole, similes, antithesis, etc.  

The rule of thumb of biblical interpretation is that you do not build a case on passages from wisdom or prophetic literature unless you have passages from non-wisdom or non-prophetic literature to base them upon.

As an example, one cannot use Psalm 6:6 to claim that beds swim or couches are dissolved with tears (NASB).  You can't do that because non-wisdom biblical literature doesn't support those conclusions.


----------



## Bama4me

hobbs27 said:


> .....And because of that imputed sin he died.
> Spiritually.



Agreed


----------



## Bama4me

hobbs27 said:


> From the works of a friend:
> 
> "The basic flow of Pauline theology in Romans 9-11 was about the bringing together of Jew/Gentile into the "one body" (Eph. 4:5).
> 
> It was the work of the "remnant" (Rom. 11:5) through the eschatological ministry of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:13), to reveal the "mystery of God" (Eph. 3:9, 10) to bring in the Gentiles through grafting them into the "root" of Israel's "promises" (Rom. 11:16-18 15:8). Salvation was "of the Jews" (John 4:22). Christ had come to "save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21) as the sacrificial "lamb of God" (John 1:29).  Jesus as Israel's Messiah is the very heart of the message of Biblical fulfillment.
> 
> Then the "hope of Israel" (Acts 28:20) became the "one hope" (Eph. 4:4-6) of the gospel that was the "power of God for salvation" (Rom. 1:16).  This very "hope" was consummated at the "ends of the ages" (Heb. 9:26).
> 
> The Gentiles had entered into Israel's "spiritual things" (Rom. 15:27) through the "baptism into His [Christ's] death" (Rom. 6:3-5) and those became fellow partakers of the "promises made to the fathers" (Rom. 15:8).
> 
> In the end, "all Israel" was saved (delivered) (Rom. 11:26), which included the "fullness of the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:25). The ONLY promises were those made through Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3) and thus the Gentiles had entered into the "root" of those "promises" in order to receive them.
> 
> When we understand the ebb and flow of redemptive history as seen through the eyes of the apostle Paul in the book of Romans, only then can we appreciate fully the depth, beauty and the riches of God's goodness.  We now live in the reality of the finished work of God through the Cross that was brought to completion in 70 CE" -- Larry Siegle



You always hear that context is important to getting truth out of a passage.  I would go as far as saying that simply picking up the book of Romans and trying to understand it without having ANY idea of its purpose is like a novice trying to juggle chainsaws blindfolded.  You might get lucky once or twice, but you'll eventually be seriously wounded.  Romans is a well-written, well-argued piece of theology primarily designed to help Christians understand how God could save both Jews and Gentiles through faith - while answering questions arising from the discussion.  A great letter... but not always so easy to understand.


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> Seems Paul was saying that at some point prior to being accountable to the law of Moses, that he didn't sin.  When he became "of age" to understand, he became accountable to obedience to the law - which specific what sin was and wasn't.  At that point, because he couldn't keep the law perfectly, he became a sinner... not through birth, but via his imperfections.



Paul is not saying that he didn't sin before the law. Paul is saying before the law he didn't know he was sinning.

Where there is no law, there is no transgression. The law wasn't given so men would know how to act. The law was given to show them their sin, so they would see that they couldn't be perfect by acting perfect, because they couldn't do it good enough if they were honest and knew the law.

The law was only to show men their sin so that they would see the need for a sacrifice and ultimately the sacrifice of Jesus.


Before the law, God didn't hold men's sins against them, but the Children of Israel were boastful and thought they could meet God's requirements, so the law was given to prove that they would fall short when relying on themselves. That is why the law says that if you are guilty of breaking one law ,you are guilty of all, so that men wouldn't get the idea that 90% was good enough. 

Those who preach righteousness by works have fallen from grace and into the law. It's a pity because whosoever lives by the law will be judged by the law and no one will ever be good enough by good works. Righteousness by faith will cause good works, but good works without righteousness by faith is as filthy rags to God.


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> Paul is not saying that he didn't sin before the law. Paul is saying before the law he didn't know he was sinning.



I disagree based on the fact Paul is speaking from firsthand experience - "I was once alive apart from the law".  Though he was born a Jew and would eventually be accountable to the Law of Moses at a certain stage in his life, when he was born he was free from sin - and would be until becoming old enough to grasp right from wrong.

With the last part of your post, I'd ask you the same thing I asked Art... how do you reconcile the numerous passages referring to the basis of our eternal judgment with the idea that salvation has nothing to with works?


----------



## Bama4me

I think what you mention probably brings up a question... is a sin "a sin" when there's no knowledge or understanding on the part of the person.  As an example, suppose a child were to fire a loaded handgun and kill another person - would we refer to that as "a sin"?  The term "sin" to me seems to include the idea that the one guilty of the action is able to mentally reason and think.


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> I disagree based on the fact Paul is speaking from firsthand experience - "I was once alive apart from the law".  Though he was born a Jew and would eventually be accountable to the Law of Moses at a certain stage in his life, when he was born he was free from sin - and would be until becoming old enough to grasp right from wrong.
> 
> With the last part of your post, I'd ask you the same thing I asked Art... how do you reconcile the numerous passages referring to the basis of our eternal judgment with the idea that salvation has nothing to with works?





how do you reconcile the numerous passages referring to the basis of our eternal judgment with the idea that salvation has nothing to with works?[/
I wouldn't say having nothing to do with works but I would say not based on works. How do you reconcile the passages that speak of salvation by faith through grace apart from works? 

Works are not a requirement of salvation, yet a saved person without good works is somehow broken. It's like saying walking is not a requirement for life, yet a living healthy person will walk, or something is very wrong.

 Paul and James are not opposed to each other yet Paul says very clearly in Romans 4, that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works. James says that Abraham was justified by works and by works was his faith made perfect. These two agree with each other as improbable as it seems. A man is justified by faith, yet is faith really faith if it isn't sufficient to create works? 

Faith and works should not be separated, for faith is dead without works, and works without faith is useless and vain. There is danger in separation of the two for in one instance a man will think his dead faith is really alive, and never live a life benefited by good works, and in the other case a man will try to work his way to righteousness, only trusting in himself and never having saving faith in God.


----------



## gemcgrew

Bama4me said:


> Another nice one gem... as one of God's elect who doesn't believe in free will, I suppose it's God who causes you to consistently belittle others in these threads?


Of course it is God. As long as you have to suppose it, you will have to oppose it.


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> I wouldn't say having nothing to do with works but I would say not based on works. How do you reconcile the passages that speak of salvation by faith through grace apart from works?
> 
> Works are not a requirement of salvation, yet a saved person without good works is somehow broken. It's like saying walking is not a requirement for life, yet a living healthy person will walk, or something is very wrong.
> 
> Paul and James are not opposed to each other yet Paul says very clearly in Romans 4, that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works. James says that Abraham was justified by works and by works was his faith made perfect. These two agree with each other as improbable as it seems. A man is justified by faith, yet is faith really faith if it isn't sufficient to create works?
> 
> Faith and works should not be separated, for faith is dead without works, and works without faith is useless and vain. There is danger in separation of the two for in one instance a man will think his dead faith is really alive, and never live a life benefited by good works, and in the other case a man will try to work his way to righteousness, only trusting in himself and never having saving faith in God.



I, like you, believe that faith is integral to our salvation... as per Ephesians 2:8-9.  However, I will differ from you in that I believe works to be essential to salvation also.  To be saved, one must have faith (Romans 5:1) AND works (James 2:24).  As you correctly mention above, the first component is the faith - Hebrews 11 mentions many who "by faith" were moved to action.

As to the answer to the question of reconciling conflicting passages, the answer lies in a basic rule of interpretation: when two passages are found to conflict each other, are both using terms in the same way.  In this case, I believe it's the word "works".  There are at least 2 kinds of works in the New Testament - (1) works prescribed by the law of Moses and (2) works associated with salvation.

Regarding works prescribed by the law of Moses...
* Galatians 2:16 - Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ...
* Romans 3:28 - For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Regarding works associated with salvation...
* James 2:24 - You see that a person is justified by works and not faith alone.
* Philippians 2:12 - Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so no, not only as in my presence but more more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling...
* Numerous passages regarding works and judgment

In some passages, it's clear that the works are "works of the law" because it states that exactly.  However, there are other passages which do not state "works of the law" when it is obviously intended - such as Romans 3:27.  It's my belief that the "works" mentioned throughout Romans (excluding 13:12) are "works of the law"... as well as the "works" of Ephesians 2.

Another possibility about "works" is that an inspired writer could have been talking about the "system of Christianity" when referring to "grace" or "kindness".  While Ephesians 2:9 could be viewed in that light, I think a better example is Titus 3:4-5.  God's scheme of redemption wasn't created by righteous people doing righteous things - God planned and executed the plan for man's redemption.  And, man's salvation today is by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (an allusion to baptism).

The thing that helps me more than anything settle here on this subject is the various examples in Hebrews 11.  Noah, for example, would not have been saved had he not built the ark as God commanded (faith + works).  Abraham had a faith that moved him to action in sacrificing Isaac (faith + works).  Moses' parents' faith caused them to hide him as an infant (faith + works).  

In all three examples, I ask "would God have approved of these individuals if they had NOT obeyed?"  The answer is no.  Can a person today find salvation by clinging to the Law of Moses and its commandments?  No... salvation is only found though faith in Jesus Christ - and faith that will include obedience to God's word.


----------



## Bama4me

gemcgrew said:


> Of course it is God. As long as you have to suppose it, you will have to oppose it.



So a person gets to blame all his/her mistakes and sins on God... so what Adam and Eve should have said in the garden of Eden was "it's your fault God".  Right?


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> I, like you, believe that faith is integral to our salvation... as per Ephesians 2:8-9.  However, I will differ from you in that I believe works to be essential to salvation also.  To be saved, one must have faith (Romans 5:1) AND works (James 2:24).  As you correctly mention above, the first component is the faith - Hebrews 11 mentions many who "by faith" were moved to action.
> 
> As to the answer to the question of reconciling conflicting passages, the answer lies in a basic rule of interpretation: when two passages are found to conflict each other, are both using terms in the same way.  In this case, I believe it's the word "works".  There are at least 2 kinds of works in the New Testament - (1) works prescribed by the law of Moses and (2) works associated with salvation.
> 
> Regarding works prescribed by the law of Moses...
> * Galatians 2:16 - Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ...
> * Romans 3:28 - For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
> 
> Regarding works associated with salvation...
> * James 2:24 - You see that a person is justified by works and not faith alone.
> * Philippians 2:12 - Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so no, not only as in my presence but more more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling...
> * Numerous passages regarding works and judgment
> 
> In some passages, it's clear that the works are "works of the law" because it states that exactly.  However, there are other passages which do not state "works of the law" when it is obviously intended - such as Romans 3:27.  It's my belief that the "works" mentioned throughout Romans (excluding 13:12) are "works of the law"... as well as the "works" of Ephesians 2.
> 
> Another possibility about "works" is that an inspired writer could have been talking about the "system of Christianity" when referring to "grace" or "kindness".  While Ephesians 2:9 could be viewed in that light, I think a better example is Titus 3:4-5.  God's scheme of redemption wasn't created by righteous people doing righteous things - God planned and executed the plan for man's redemption.  And, man's salvation today is by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (an allusion to baptism).
> 
> The thing that helps me more than anything settle here on this subject is the various examples in Hebrews 11.  Noah, for example, would not have been saved had he not built the ark as God commanded (faith + works).  Abraham had a faith that moved him to action in sacrificing Isaac (faith + works).  Moses' parents' faith caused them to hide him as an infant (faith + works).
> 
> In all three examples, I ask "would God have approved of these individuals if they had NOT obeyed?"  The answer is no.  Can a person today find salvation by clinging to the Law of Moses and its commandments?  No... salvation is only found though faith in Jesus Christ - and faith that will include obedience to God's word.



 My position is different than yours. I would say that we are saved by faith alone, yet faith is never alone if it is really saving faith. It may seem a contradiction but I will sum up my position with scripture that more clearly states my position.

Romans 4:9-11King James Version (KJV)

9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:


You see, it was Abraham's faith that was counted as righteousness. Abraham's works were a sign and seal of his faith, which he had before his works.

Likewise we are saved by grace through faith, yet good works are a sign and seal of our faith.


----------



## gemcgrew

Bama4me said:


> So a person gets to blame all his/her mistakes and sins on God... so what Adam and Eve should have said in the garden of Eden was "it's your fault God".  Right?


Do you suppose you would blame God, if you believed? What if I told you that you would praise God?


----------



## Israel

Bama4me said:


> So a person gets to blame all his/her mistakes and sins on God... so what Adam and Eve should have said in the garden of Eden was "it's your fault God".  Right?



But, that's exactly what I hear Adam say..."the woman YOU gave me..."

I am thinking _throwing God under the bus_ is nothing new at all...


----------



## welderguy

Bama4me said:


> Trying to prove something from the Psalms alone is like trying to prove something today from a song book. Just like our songs today, Psalms is filled with hyperbole, similes, antithesis, etc.
> 
> The rule of thumb of biblical interpretation is that you do not build a case on passages from wisdom or prophetic literature unless you have passages from non-wisdom or non-prophetic literature to base them upon.
> 
> As an example, one cannot use Psalm 6:6 to claim that beds swim or couches are dissolved with tears (NASB).  You can't do that because non-wisdom biblical literature doesn't support those conclusions.



Did Paul know about your rule of thumb when he said this?:

 "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;"

The Psalms are not just an ordinary "song book".It's part of the inspired word of God.And we know that all scripture is "profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness..."
I understand what you are saying.It must be rightly devided,I agree.


----------



## hobbs27

Israel said:


> But, that's exactly what I hear Adam say..."the woman YOU gave me..."



You're right, but how did that work out for him?


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> You're right, but how did that work out for him?



As it did. 
Yet, with promise.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> As it did.
> Yet, with promise.


Amen!

Eve stated a fact in saying "the serpent". Adam stated a fact in saying "the woman".

God told Adam, "In the day thou eatest thereof"

There is no if here, only when.


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> St. Clement. “Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary.”
> 
> Justin Martyr “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it is predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.”
> 
> Just some thoughts from early church leaders.


 Rather than write another book, the blue especially...seems blatantly...


words fail.


----------



## Artfuldodger

"In the day thou eatest thereof"

If that day had never happened, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Jesus would have never became a man. In fact, he may have never even became a third part of the Trinity.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bama4me said:


> Your second post answered the first.  Your assumption in the first is that people "missed out", but there's not way to know that.  The stories of Acts shows that God works via people to share the gospel message to mankind - had Ananias not gone, I'm sure Saul would have heard from another messenger.



Are you saying that the fate of every man lies in us reaching them before they die a physical death?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bama4me said:


> How can salvation and judgment not be linked together?  Multiple passages clearly say that our eternal reward is determined by our works.  Also, in Revelation 2:5, Jesus stated He would disown the Ephesian church if they didn't "return to their first works".
> 
> BTW, if you want the word "saved" in a passage that says something similar, try James 2:14-26.
> 
> Again, how can we harmonize passages that say "salvation is apart from works" with passages that say "salvation is based upon works"?



If my salvation is dependent on works, why did I need Jesus to die for the works I couldn't do? God could have just sent me his Spirit first.

We haven't discussed "fruits." If  a Christian isn't showing fruits, isn't that a sign his salvation didn't work? Couldn't that be a sign that he wasn't of the elect after all? That he just had a warm and fuzzy feeling and thought it was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> From the works of a friend:
> 
> "The basic flow of Pauline theology in Romans 9-11 was about the bringing together of Jew/Gentile into the "one body" (Eph. 4:5).
> 
> It was the work of the "remnant" (Rom. 11:5) through the eschatological ministry of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:13), to reveal the "mystery of God" (Eph. 3:9, 10) to bring in the Gentiles through grafting them into the "root" of Israel's "promises" (Rom. 11:16-18 15:8). Salvation was "of the Jews" (John 4:22). Christ had come to "save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21) as the sacrificial "lamb of God" (John 1:29).  Jesus as Israel's Messiah is the very heart of the message of Biblical fulfillment.
> 
> Then the "hope of Israel" (Acts 28:20) became the "one hope" (Eph. 4:4-6) of the gospel that was the "power of God for salvation" (Rom. 1:16).  This very "hope" was consummated at the "ends of the ages" (Heb. 9:26).
> 
> The Gentiles had entered into Israel's "spiritual things" (Rom. 15:27) through the "baptism into His [Christ's] death" (Rom. 6:3-5) and those became fellow partakers of the "promises made to the fathers" (Rom. 15:8).
> 
> In the end, "all Israel" was saved (delivered) (Rom. 11:26), which included the "fullness of the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:25). The ONLY promises were those made through Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3) and thus the Gentiles had entered into the "root" of those "promises" in order to receive them.
> 
> When we understand the ebb and flow of redemptive history as seen through the eyes of the apostle Paul in the book of Romans, only then can we appreciate fully the depth, beauty and the riches of God's goodness.  We now live in the reality of the finished work of God through the Cross that was brought to completion in 70 CE" -- Larry Siegle



I agree about Romans being a key to understanding. It is hard to understand. Heck even Paul is hard to understand and goes back and forth between works and grace.

Getting back to Romans & Ephesians, was there a time that Gentiles were without hope and God just for being a Gentile? Did it take the hardening of the Jews for the Gentiles to be grafted in? 
Paul and his mystery? He seems to say he had this divine intervention and was provided with this new way for Gentiles to finally be grafted in. He called in a "mystery."


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> "In the day thou eatest thereof"
> 
> If that day had never happened, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Jesus would have never became a man. In fact, he may have never even became a third part of the Trinity.



Jesus didn't become the third part of the trinity when he was born on earth, he always was. In fact you can't even look at the trinity as 3 separate parts, as in Jesus being part number 3. The scripture says there are three in Heaven and these three are one. Just as you have a spirit, soul, and body. You wouldn't refer to your body as part number 3.


----------



## hobbs27

Israel said:


> Rather than write another book, the blue especially...seems blatantly...
> 
> 
> words fail.



 Justin Martyr was a very influential Church Father...


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> If my salvation is dependent on works, why did I need Jesus to die for the works I couldn't do? God could have just sent me his Spirit first.
> 
> We haven't discussed "fruits." If  a Christian isn't showing fruits, isn't that a sign his salvation didn't work? Couldn't that be a sign that he wasn't of the elect after all? That he just had a warm and fuzzy feeling and thought it was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.



Fruits grow as a result of being connected to the vine.

John 15:2 when translated properly says that every branch in Jesus that does not bear fruit God lifts up. The lifting up of branches is a technique used in a vineyard to increase fruit production.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree about Romans being a key to understanding. It is hard to understand. Heck even Paul is hard to understand and goes back and forth between works and grace.
> 
> Getting back to Romans & Ephesians, was there a time that Gentiles were without hope and God just for being a Gentile? Did it take the hardening of the Jews for the Gentiles to be grafted in?
> Paul and his mystery? He seems to say he had this divine intervention and was provided with this new way for Gentiles to finally be grafted in. He called in a "mystery."



Yes and no. Gentiles could convert and become an Israelite. Few did, partly because most Israelites were very bigoted. The story of Jonah demonstrates that.

It took Jesus to bring the Jew and Gentile together into one body.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> Jesus didn't become the third part of the trinity when he was born on earth, he always was. In fact you can't even look at the trinity as 3 separate parts, as in Jesus being part number 3. The scripture says there are three in Heaven and these three are one. Just as you have a spirit, soul, and body. You wouldn't refer to your body as part number 3.



That was my point. The Word was with God. Everything was created through or for Jesus. There would have never been a Trinity if Adam was to never sin. 

Notice how quickly God told Satan, his son would crush his head, and you will bruise his heel."


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Yes and no. Gentiles could convert and become an Israelite. Few did, partly because most Israelites were very bigoted. The story of Jonah demonstrates that.
> 
> It took Jesus to bring the Jew and Gentile together into one body.



What was Paul's role in bringing Gentiles into the grafting? Why does Paul lead us to believe he had some part in their salvation? His mystery of the Jews  rejection bringing reconciliation to the world. Like it was different before him. I do understand the coming together of one body but what about before the Jews rejection? Before Romans 11? Before the grafting? Before Paul?

Now that Paul is gone, are we all Pauls as in the role of ministers? If we didn't reach all of the dead future saints, did someone else? Did election assure some other Paul or some other  Ananias will reach all of the future Gentile saints? The Hindus? Who is reaching them? The individual Hindus that the Father will draw to Jesus?

If it does take a man? If it does take the Word? Where are God's Ananias? God made sure Paul received one, what about the rest of the world?


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> What was Paul's role in bringing Gentiles into the grafting? Why does Paul lead us to believe he had some part in their salvation? His mystery of the Jews  rejection bringing reconciliation to the world. Like it was different before him. I do understand the coming together of one body but what about before the Jews rejection? Before Romans 11? Before the grafting? Before Paul?
> 
> Now that Paul is gone, are we all Pauls as in the role of ministers? If we didn't reach all of the dead future saints, did someone else? Did election assure some other Paul or some other  Ananias will reach all of the future Gentile saints? The Hindus? Who is reaching them? The individual Hindus that the Father will draw to Jesus?
> 
> If it does take a man? If it does take the Word? Where are God's Ananias? God made sure Paul received one, what about the rest of the world?



The Gospel went to the Jew first. Paul took it to the Gentiles..They were in the transitional period of already, but not yet.

We are indeed all ministers. All election did was form the bride..those Jews and Gentiles in the first century that became one body-- the church-- the Bride. They were the elect, no one since then are (elect).

Salvation is easy. Revelation 22.


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> Justin Martyr was a very influential Church Father...



Regardless.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Revelation 22:17 
The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let the one who hears say, "Come!" Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.

Wow, it's that easy. OK, I get that. What about the individuals that don't "hear?" The individuals whose names are already in the Book of Life but they haven't "heard?" Where is their Paul or their Ananias? If it takes more than one Mediator, where is their minister? The   one that they may hear.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> Revelation 22:17
> The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let the one who hears say, "Come!" Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.
> 
> Wow, it's that easy. OK, I get that. What about the individuals that don't "hear?" The individuals whose names are already in the Book of Life but they haven't "heard?" Where is their Paul or their Ananias? If it takes more than one Mediator, where is their minister? The   one that they may hear.


"I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth"


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Revelation 22:17
> The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let the one who hears say, "Come!" Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.
> 
> Wow, it's that easy. OK, I get that. What about the individuals that don't "hear?" The individuals whose names are already in the Book of Life but they haven't "heard?" Where is their Paul or their Ananias? If it takes more than one Mediator, where is their minister? The   one that they may hear.




Personally I believe the book is opened and read, so there are no more names in it, but that's for another discussion. As to the people that don't hear...I don't know. They never enjoy life on this side having a Savior and blessings in the spirit..They just perish? Perhaps..


----------



## jmharris23

This is a complicated conversation.....when I'm not sure it should be. 

Is it too simple a thing to say that we are saved by grace through faith, not of our own works, but that our salvation, if it is a true salvation will most definitely produce good works?


----------



## hummerpoo

jmharris23 said:


> This is a complicated conversation.....when I'm not sure it should be.
> 
> Is it too simple a thing to say that we are saved by grace through faith, not of our own works, but that our salvation, if it is a true salvation will most definitely produce good works?



No statement can remain uncomplicated until all ego is brought into submission.
Witness that God is central to His creation, and revelation — expressed in the statement "In the beginning God created ... " — is contended.


----------



## gordon 2

jmharris23 said:


> This is a complicated conversation.....when I'm not sure it should be.
> 
> Is it too simple a thing to say that we are saved by grace through faith, not of our own works, but that our salvation, if it is a true salvation will most definitely produce good works?



I agree.


----------



## RH Clark

jmharris23 said:


> This is a complicated conversation.....when I'm not sure it should be.
> 
> Is it too simple a thing to say that we are saved by grace through faith, not of our own works, but that our salvation, if it is a true salvation will most definitely produce good works?



I agree, but sadly I have found that Christians will argue about nearly everything.


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> My position is different than yours. I would say that we are saved by faith alone, yet faith is never alone if it is really saving faith. It may seem a contradiction but I will sum up my position with scripture that more clearly states my position.
> 
> Romans 4:9-11King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
> 
> 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
> 
> 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
> 
> 
> You see, it was Abraham's faith that was counted as righteousness. Abraham's works were a sign and seal of his faith, which he had before his works.
> 
> Likewise we are saved by grace through faith, yet good works are a sign and seal of our faith.



I agree with this passage, and all other passages that will speak of these things.  However, you cannot ignore other passages in the NT that speak of works being integral to our salvation.  It's like looking at only one side of the coin and ignoring that the other exists.

The case is made in the NT that works do not save... and the case is made that works do save.  When a contradiction like this exists, something is not as it seems.  Either a term is being misunderstood, context is ignored, etc.  I believe the works of Ephesians 2 and Romans 4 are works of the law - a law that when Ephesians/Romans was written had been nailed to the cross of Christ.


----------



## Bama4me

welderguy said:


> Did Paul know about your rule of thumb when he said this?:
> 
> "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;"
> 
> The Psalms are not just an ordinary "song book".It's part of the inspired word of God.And we know that all scripture is "profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness..."
> I understand what you are saying.It must be rightly devided,I agree.



Based on Psalm 6:6, do you believe that beds can swim?  Based on Psalm 35:10, do you believe that bones have the ability to talk?  Based on Psalm 84:11, do you believe that God is an actual sun and shield (that's His physical form)?


----------



## Bama4me

Artfuldodger said:


> If my salvation is dependent on works, why did I need Jesus to die for the works I couldn't do? God could have just sent me his Spirit first.
> 
> We haven't discussed "fruits." If  a Christian isn't showing fruits, isn't that a sign his salvation didn't work? Couldn't that be a sign that he wasn't of the elect after all? That he just had a warm and fuzzy feeling and thought it was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.



When you stand before God on the day of judgment, you will be judged according to your works. Why is that IF works have no bearing on salvation whatsoever?

Can you show a passage in Scripture where the Holy Spirit caused someone to have a "warm, fuzzy feeling"?  Or, a passage that indicates someone knew they had the Spirit in them because of the way they felt?


----------



## Bama4me

Artfuldodger said:


> Are you saying that the fate of every man lies in us reaching them before they die a physical death?



You are speaking as if God is completely left out of the equation.  It's God who caused Ananias to go to Saul... it was God who caused Philip to preach to the Ethiopian... it was God who caused Peter to go to Caesarea to Cornelius.  God works through people to save men with the gospel.  In fact, in the book of Acts (a book giving us many examples of conversion), can you find an instance where people were saved when some type of preaching/message was not involved?

Your assertion assumes someone won't be reached if you or I don't reach them.  God isn't limited to working alone through people who frequent this board - but through all.


----------



## Bama4me

jmharris23 said:


> This is a complicated conversation.....when I'm not sure it should be.
> 
> Is it too simple a thing to say that we are saved by grace through faith, not of our own works, but that our salvation, if it is a true salvation will most definitely produce good works?



The reason it's complicated is that people don't consider all that is written in the Scriptures on the subject.  No one in this thread has provided an answer to a question I posed two pages earlier.  IF works have nothing to do with our salvation, why does God consistently say our judgment will be dependent upon our works?  And, why does the great judgment scene of Matthew 25 focus on the works that were done by people?  

In Matthew 25, the faithful (1) fed the hungry, (2) gave drink to the thirsty, (3) welcomed the stranger, (4) clothed the naked, and (5) visited the those in prison.  Likewise, the unfaithful DIDN'T DO those things.

When Jesus was asked "why", you and others claim Jesus' answer should have been "you didn't have a genuine faith."  Yet, the answer was "as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me."

When all of the teachings on this subject are studied, there is a simple conclusion.  The Roman brethren were caught up in "salvation by works of the law"... and thus faith was stressed.  The brethren addressed in James were caught up in "salvation by faith alone"... and thus works was taught.  We're not saved by faith alone... and we're not saved by works alone.  We're saved by our faith and works.

That's why so many NT passages come with a condition as in 1 John 1:9 - "IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."  If works (i.e. confessing our sins) do not affect our salvation, then why the "if"?


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> The reason it's complicated is that people don't consider all that is written in the Scriptures on the subject.  No one in this thread has provided an answer to a question I posed two pages earlier.  IF works have nothing to do with our salvation, why does God consistently say our judgment will be dependent upon our works?  And, why does the great judgment scene of Matthew 25 focus on the works that were done by people?
> 
> In Matthew 25, the faithful (1) fed the hungry, (2) gave drink to the thirsty, (3) welcomed the stranger, (4) clothed the naked, and (5) visited the those in prison.  Likewise, the unfaithful DIDN'T DO those things.
> 
> When Jesus was asked "why", you and others claim Jesus' answer should have been "you didn't have a genuine faith."  Yet, the answer was "as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me."
> 
> When all of the teachings on this subject are studied, there is a simple conclusion.  The Roman brethren were caught up in "salvation by works of the law"... and thus faith was stressed.  The brethren addressed in James were caught up in "salvation by faith alone"... and thus works was taught.  We're not saved by faith alone... and we're not saved by works alone.  We're saved by our faith and works.
> 
> That's why so many NT passages come with a condition as in 1 John 1:9 - "IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."  If works (i.e. confessing our sins) do not affect our salvation, then why the "if"?




We will be judged according to our works but the question of our salvation is not in that judgment. There will be rewards according to works, and perhaps appointments.

Looking at 1 John 1:9, you are reading it with your doctrinal glasses on. What you are saying is that sins, every sin must be confessed before it is forgiven. That is not at all what the text says. You would have a man in a constant state of  saved one minuet and not saved the next, both in and out of grace depending on how well and often he could confess.

Lets look at the scriptures in their proper context.
 1 John 1:5-9King James Version (KJV)

5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


Look at verse 6 " if we say we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness, we do not the truth." Most church people and I think you also would say that that verse means that if we say we are in Christ but sin then we are not doing the truth. That is not what that verse says.

Look at verse 7. It says that if we walk in the light then the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin. It would be a contradiction to say then that walking in the light means walking without sin, for if we have no sin ,then what sin is His blood cleansing us from?

Verse 8 says that if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, followed by verse 9 which says that if we confess our sins He will cleanse us of all our sins. Verse 9 isn't saying that we aren't cleansed if we somehow fail to confess. That would be again placing salvation on your ability. 

Verse 9 is speaking of acknowledging that we are sinners. Remember it follows verse 8 which says that if we do not acknowledge that we are sinners, the truth is not in us. I give you in point the biblical example of the Pharisee and the Publican of Luke 18. The Pharisee simply thanked God that he was such a righteous man, but the publican smote his chest and begged for mercy, acknowledging himself a sinner in need of grace.


----------



## hummerpoo

Mat. 25:
37 Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

Do we suppose that Jesus needs to be fed, clothed, etc.? no.
Do we suppose that those who are hungry, naked, etc. are Christ? no.
Does Jesus desire to, and indeed does, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.? yes.
Does Jesus accomplish His purpose through those in whom He lives; those whom He indwells, those who are truly saved? yes.
Jesus lives in those who are dead to themselves and alive to Him.
Dead people do nothing ... Dead works.


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> We will be judged according to our works but the question of our salvation is not in that judgment. There will be rewards according to works, and perhaps appointments.



As to your first point, in the judgment passages of Romans 2:6-8, Revelation 20:11ff, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Matthew 25:31ff, it's clear that judgment isn't about "rewards" or "appointments".  In fact, Romans 2:9-10 says "there will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek."

Now... IF those passages referenced above would read "the righteous are rewarded because they had a genuine faith" or something similar, I'd agree with your position.  You say someone is saved by faith alone... I disagree because one's works are consistently mentioned as the criteria separating one from eternal reward and eternal punishment.


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> As to your first point, in the judgment passages of Romans 2:6-8, Revelation 20:11ff, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Matthew 25:31ff, it's clear that judgment isn't about "rewards" or "appointments".  In fact, Romans 2:9-10 says "there will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek."
> 
> Now... IF those passages referenced above would read "the righteous are rewarded because they had a genuine faith" or something similar, I'd agree with your position.  You say someone is saved by faith alone... I disagree because one's works are consistently mentioned as the criteria separating one from eternal reward and eternal punishment.



Of coarse there will be tribulation and stress for those who do evil, but that is a far cry from basing salvation on good works.

The great danger of basing your salvation on works is that you place your trust in your own ability rather than in the grace of God. Do you really want to stand before God and be judged on how good you are? I wish you could see that fallacy of your ways, but alas, it seems not.


----------



## Artfuldodger

It does appear the New Testament goes back and forth about whether salvation is granted for faith and/or is based on good & evil deeds.
If it is based on good and evil deeds, what is the cut off point?
How could an individual ever have assurance?


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> As to your first point, in the judgment passages of Romans 2:6-8, Revelation 20:11ff, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Matthew 25:31ff, it's clear that judgment isn't about "rewards" or "appointments".  In fact, Romans 2:9-10 says "there will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek."
> 
> Now... IF those passages referenced above would read "the righteous are rewarded because they had a genuine faith" or something similar, I'd agree with your position.  You say someone is saved by faith alone... I disagree because one's works are consistently mentioned as the criteria separating one from eternal reward and eternal punishment.



1 Corinthians 3:13-15King James Version (KJV)

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.


I see you completely ignored my commentary on the passages in John.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Matthew 6:15
But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> It does appear the New Testament goes back and forth about whether salvation is granted for faith and/or is based on good & evil deeds.
> If it is based on good and evil deeds, what is the cut off point?
> How could an individual ever have assurance?



As long as salvation is based on yourself, there is never assurance. Jesus is the only one good enough. You had better base your salvation on him.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> It does appear the New Testament goes back and forth about whether salvation is granted for faith and/or is based on good & evil deeds.
> If it is based on good and evil deeds, what is the cut off point?
> How could an individual ever have assurance?



If deeds of faith are good deeds ,
and all other deeds are evil,
does that not resolve your perceived conflicts?


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> Look at verse 6 " if we say we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness, we do not the truth." Most church people and I think you also would say that that verse means that if we say we are in Christ but sin then we are not doing the truth. That is not what that verse says.
> 
> Look at verse 7. It says that if we walk in the light then the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin. It would be a contradiction to say then that walking in the light means walking without sin, for if we have no sin ,then what sin is His blood cleansing us from?
> 
> Verse 8 says that if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, followed by verse 9 which says that if we confess our sins He will cleanse us of all our sins. Verse 9 isn't saying that we aren't cleansed if we somehow fail to confess. That would be again placing salvation on your ability.
> 
> Verse 9 is speaking of acknowledging that we are sinners. Remember it follows verse 8 which says that if we do not acknowledge that we are sinners, the truth is not in us. I give you in point the biblical example of the Pharisee and the Publican of Luke 18. The Pharisee simply thanked God that he was such a righteous man, but the publican smote his chest and begged for mercy, acknowledging himself a sinner in need of grace.



In this point, it seems clear to me that you are looking at the passage with your doctrinal glasses on - which when one believes in salvation by faith only, is common to do.

In the context, the subject under discussion is "walking in darkness" contrasted with "walking in the light".  Based on what you said above, I believe you'd identify "walking in darkness" as "walking in sin" because a form of the word "sin" is mentioned 5 times in the section and other New Testament passages clearly imply that definition.

In context, this idea is contrasted by "walking in the light".  If you were reading John's letter, you'd understand that "walking in the light" is characterized by these things:
(1) A continual state of forgiveness through Christ's blood.
(2) A continual state of fellowship with one another.
(3) Acknowledging that we sin (perfection isn't possible).
(4) Confessing our sins

Thus, "walking in darkness" would be characterized as:
(1) No forgiveness through Christ's blood.
(2) No fellowship with one another.
(3) Refusing to acknowledge sin in our life.
(4) An unwillingness to confess sin in our lives.

You state regarding verse 9 that confessing our sins would be paramount to "placing salvation on your ability."  That's exactly what the passage teaches - and that would agree with Philippians 2:12.  In saying this, please understand I am NOT saying that a person is saved totally by works in this type of situation.  Verse 7 and verse 9 clearly state a confessing individual is cleansed by the blood of Jesus.  I don't deserve Jesus' blood in my life - the wages of my sin is death (Romans 6:23).  And, these guidelines were given by God - not devised by man.  In other words, this is a plan that is Divine (not man-made). 

Just as God commanded the COI to look upon the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:4ff in order to receive forgiveness, He commands us today to acknowledge/confess our sins.  The COI of old had to do this in regards to their sacrifices centuries before - failing to offer God sacrifices meant an Israelite wasn't willing to comply with God's terms for pardon.  Saying we have no sin... or being unwilling to confess it before His throne?  There's no forgiveness or fellowship.

As far as your interpretation of verses 6 and 7, "walking in darkness" is not simply sinning.  The word "walk" as its used in the NT refers to one's way of life - one's pattern of living.  And, the word "walk" carries with it the implication of a "chosen path".  John later speaks of one who chooses to "walk in darkness" - he/she makes a practice of sinning (3:8).  There's a great difference in the one who sins while trying to be righteous and one who sins while caring not that he sins.  

People of the world AND Christians sin?  The difference?  People of the world have no contrition and continue to indulge in those wicked ways.  Christians are penitent and honest about their shortcomings and cast themselves on the mercy of God for forgiveness - by acknowledging and confessing those things before Him.  IF you interpret the passage as you have done above, you're in a position to say the following... "a person does NOT have to acknowledge or confess his/her sin in order to be cleansed by Jesus' blood."


----------



## Artfuldodger

Perceived conflict perhaps, but it's not just one or two verses that discusses good deeds, evil deeds, and judgment.

What about post #913? Must I forgive others in order for God to forgive me? Forgiveness is a hard thing to do. I usually want revenge.


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> The great danger of basing your salvation on works is that you place your trust in your own ability rather than in the grace of God. Do you really want to stand before God and be judged on how good you are? I wish you could see that fallacy of your ways, but alas, it seems not.



How is complying with God's terms of pardon "trusting in my own ability"?  I'm submitting to what He's told me... I'm simply doing what He commands.  Without the blood of Christ in my life, I have no hope!!!


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Perceived conflict perhaps, but it's not just one or two verses that discusses good deeds, evil deeds, and judgment.


My question was intended to be global.



> What about post #913? Must I forgive others in order for God to forgive me? Forgiveness is a hard thing to do. I usually want revenge.


Sanctification is complete in eternity; in time, it is never complete.


----------



## Bama4me

Artfuldodger said:


> It does appear the New Testament goes back and forth about whether salvation is granted for faith and/or is based on good & evil deeds.
> If it is based on good and evil deeds, what is the cut off point?
> How could an individual ever have assurance?



That is a good question that comes from this discussion, and God answers it in the NT in the same passage that I have been discussing with RHC.  No matter how hard you try to obey the Lord's commands, you will fail.  Even the best, most sincere Christian you know sins.

1 John 1:6ff says we must be honest about that situation.  In praying to God, we must own up to the fact that we sin.  Hiding it or trying to justify our sin will not work - we must be honest.  And, we must confess our sins before God with a penitent attitude (2 Corinthians 7:10).  In other words, we should have a sorrowful attitude in doing so.

For a Christian, what does that look like?  Every day, when I pray to God, I ask His forgiveness for my sins.  I do not generally name all of them, some I may and others I may simply be general about.  However, remember the model prayer Jesus provided was general also -  "forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors".  The attitude that I pray with is important - I should be sorry for my sin.  MY SINS put Christ on the cross... it was MY SINS that made Him endure that agony.  When I pray like this daily, I'm always reminded of what Jesus' blood means in my life - and how helpless I am to be saved on my own merits.

Art... it's this simple.  Obey Christ and become a Christian.  Do your best to humbly submit to God's way of living.  And when you fail, penitently acknowledge/confess your sins before the Father.  The way is not hard to explain, but doing it?  That's the hard part.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I prefer "easy believism" over "lordship salvation." I sold my Religious Rollercoaster ticket a few years ago.


----------



## Bama4me

Artfuldodger said:


> I prefer "easy believism" over "lordship salvation."



Understand... we have a whole host of people in religions today who need to hear Luke 6:46-49.  I'm not living for today... I'm living for eternity.


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> How is complying with God's terms of pardon "trusting in my own ability"?  I'm submitting to what He's told me... I'm simply doing what He commands.  Without the blood of Christ in my life, I have no hope!!!



Because you place your hope in your perfect compliance. Just your view of 1 John 1:9 proves exactly that, if your view is that a sin must be confessed before it can be forgiven. In that doctrine the only way to heaven would be directly after confession of every sin, before the possibility of sinning again, and relying on being able to positively remember and confess every sin.


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> That is a good question that comes from this discussion, and God answers it in the NT in the same passage that I have been discussing with RHC.  No matter how hard you try to obey the Lord's commands, you will fail.  Even the best, most sincere Christian you know sins.
> 
> 1 John 1:6ff says we must be honest about that situation.  In praying to God, we must own up to the fact that we sin.  Hiding it or trying to justify our sin will not work - we must be honest.  And, we must confess our sins before God with a penitent attitude (2 Corinthians 7:10).  In other words, we should have a sorrowful attitude in doing so.
> 
> For a Christian, what does that look like?  Every day, when I pray to God, I ask His forgiveness for my sins.  I do not generally name all of them, some I may and others I may simply be general about.  However, remember the model prayer Jesus provided was general also -  "forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors".  The attitude that I pray with is important - I should be sorry for my sin.  MY SINS put Christ on the cross... it was MY SINS that made Him endure that agony.  When I pray like this daily, I'm always reminded of what Jesus' blood means in my life - and how helpless I am to be saved on my own merits.
> 
> Art... it's this simple.  Obey Christ and become a Christian.  Do your best to humbly submit to God's way of living.  And when you fail, penitently acknowledge/confess your sins before the Father.  The way is not hard to explain, but doing it?  That's the hard part.



 What would happen if you died after a sin but before you had a chance to pray for forgiveness for all your sins? Don't  you understand that Jesus paid the price for all your sins both past and present and that forgiveness isn't based on you having to ask for it every day?


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> Because you place your hope in your perfect compliance. Just your view of 1 John 1:9 proves exactly that, if your view is that a sin must be confessed before it can be forgiven. In that doctrine the only way to heaven would be directly after confession of every sin, before the possibility of sinning again, and relying on being able to positively remember and confess every sin.



I have a question for you.  If you had been an Israelite in the days of the Law of Moses, what would you have done if you had died on a day prior to the Day of Atonement.  Or, if you'd sinned in a manner described in Leviticus 5 and died prior to being able to make a sin offering to God?


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> What would happen if you died after a sin but before you had a chance to pray for forgiveness for all your sins? Don't  you understand that Jesus paid the price for all your sins both past and present and that forgiveness isn't based on you having to ask for it every day?



So you don't pray for forgiveness to God except at the time of your conversion?  I'm confused... Jesus prayed in the model prayer "give us this day our daily bread".  Thereby, He implied that we should pray daily and the NT affirms we should "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17).  So you pray, maybe daily, but DON'T ask God to forgive you of your sins?


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> I have a question for you.  If you had been an Israelite in the days of the Law of Moses, what would you have done if you had died on a day prior to the Day of Atonement.  Or, if you'd sinned in a manner described in Leviticus 5 and died prior to being able to make a sin offering to God?



You do realize that the day of atonement is a representation of Christ paying for our sins don't you? Even in that time it was not a ceremony that saved. The ceremony was only a representation of Christ to come. It was then and is now faith in Christ that saves.

I'm not the one relying on ceremony nor confession to save me, so please answer the question.


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> So you don't pray for forgiveness to God except at the time of your conversion?  I'm confused... Jesus prayed in the model prayer "give us this day our daily bread".  Thereby, He implied that we should pray daily and the NT affirms we should "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17).  So you pray, maybe daily, but DON'T ask God to forgive you of your sins?



No, don't take what I said the wrong way. I think we should pray all the time and of coarse ask for forgiveness and deliverance from any sin that the Holy Spirit quickens to us. I just don't say that my salvation is based on the work of me being able to confess or even remember every sin.


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> You do realize that the day of atonement is a representation of Christ paying for our sins don't you? Even in that time it was not a ceremony that saved. The ceremony was only a representation of Christ to come. It was then and is now faith in Christ that saves.
> 
> I'm not the one relying on ceremony nor confession to save me, so please answer the question.



If you'll go back and reread my earlier post, you can see I didn't claim that one must "remember every sin", much less confess every single one.  Jesus said we should pray "forgive us our debts"... but didn't elaborate on them.  I'm guessing you don't believe you have to pray for the sick by name for God to hear and answer your prayers on their behalf?  Same in regards to sin.

As to the "what happens if you die with sins you haven't asked forgiveness for", that's up to God.  The fact the NT states faithful Christians have assurance would imply that God will forgive that sin.  By my reference to the Mosaical system, you see it's not a question that's come up in the New Testament age alone.  Even then there would be faithful children of God who died before offering a Sin Offering - or the Day of Atonement.  

Regarding the Day of Atonement, you're correct that there is a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice.  However, on THIS day every year the COI would be "clean from their sins" when the ceremony was conducted (Leviticus 16:30).  The obvious implication is that prior to the ceremony, their sins were still accounted to them.


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> No, don't take what I said the wrong way. I think we should pray all the time and of coarse ask for forgiveness and deliverance from any sin that the Holy Spirit quickens to us. I just don't say that my salvation is based on the work of me being able to confess or even remember every sin.



Then why do you ask God for forgiveness of sins if asking doesn't accomplish anything?


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> Then why do you ask God for forgiveness of sins if asking doesn't accomplish anything?



Because hopefully it does accomplish something but I believe the change is more about my walk than about my inheritance.


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> Because hopefully it does accomplish something but I believe the change is more about my walk than about my inheritance.



Then a person would not be compelled to pray to God in this matter?  In other words, if someone asked "do I have to pray to God regarding my sins in order to receive forgiveness", then you'd say "no"?


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> If you'll go back and reread my earlier post, you can see I didn't claim that one must "remember every sin", much less confess every single one.  Jesus said we should pray "forgive us our debts"... but didn't elaborate on them.  I'm guessing you don't believe you have to pray for the sick by name for God to hear and answer your prayers on their behalf?  Same in regards to sin.
> 
> As to the "what happens if you die with sins you haven't asked forgiveness for", that's up to God.  The fact the NT states faithful Christians have assurance would imply that God will forgive that sin.  By my reference to the Mosaical system, you see it's not a question that's come up in the New Testament age alone.  Even then there would be faithful children of God who died before offering a Sin Offering - or the Day of Atonement.
> 
> Regarding the Day of Atonement, you're correct that there is a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice.  However, on THIS day every year the COI would be "clean from their sins" when the ceremony was conducted (Leviticus 16:30).  The obvious implication is that prior to the ceremony, their sins were still accounted to them.



My friend,I have been trying to get you to see ever since this quote from your post #906 "That's why so many NT passages come with a condition as in 1 John 1:9 - "IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." If works (i.e. confessing our sins) do not affect our salvation, then why the "if"?" 

You want to rely on works but then when you know works can't be enough you go back to grace as per this quote of yours "The fact the NT states faithful Christians have assurance would imply that God will forgive that sin." 

What I want you to see is that good works are wonderful but they can't save you. You are saved by faith because of the grace of God and because of that you should abound unto good works.


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> Then a person would not be compelled to pray to God in this matter?  In other words, if someone asked "do I have to pray to God regarding my sins in order to receive forgiveness", then you'd say "no"?



I would say that you are forgiven at the moment that you originally prayed at salvation. After that how you pray is between you and God.



Let me turn that question around on you. Would you tell someone that after they were saved and then sinned again, that they were no longer saved? Would you tell them that they had to ask for forgiveness for each sin before they were forgiven? For if a person is not forgiven then they are surly lost.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> I prefer "easy believism" over "lordship salvation." I sold my Religious Rollercoaster ticket a few years ago.



Do you mean that a person is unchanged by redemption?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Reminds me of the free will vs predestination discussion;

God is in total control but we have free will. Yes God predestines but not everything.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Reminds me of the free will vs predestination discussion;
> 
> God is in total control but we have free will. Yes God predestines but not everything.



Does that answer the question?


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> I would say that you are forgiven at the moment that you originally prayed at salvation. After that how you pray is between you and God.
> 
> Let me turn that question around on you. Would you tell someone that after they were saved and then sinned again, that they were no longer saved? Would you tell them that they had to ask for forgiveness for each sin before they were forgiven? For if a person is not forgiven then they are surly lost.



Then your answer would "no... prayer is not necessary."

The word "if" in 1 John 1:7ff is conditional.  In other words, if the conditions specified are not met, then the result is not given.  Thus, IF...
* We don't walk in the light, we have no forgiveness.
* We say we have sin, we don't deceive ourselves.
* We don't confess our sins, God will not forgive us.
* We say we have sinned, we don't make God a liar.

Since the letter was written to Christians (not unbelievers), this is not talking about a confession at the time of one's conversion... but an ongoing process.  In fact, the Greek tense of "confess" supports the conditional word "if" - it's in the present tense (action continuing into the future).  Based on these things, the answer is "a Christian who stops confessing his sins to God is a Christian who no longer enjoys forgiveness for his/her sins."  

You seem to be hung up on "each sin".  When I pray in a prayer "God please forgive me of my sins", I have done exactly what Jesus modeled in Luke 11:4 and I do what 1 John 1:9 asks of me.  Today, as I pray, I'll acknowledge to my God that I have sins on my account... and I'll ask His forgiveness for those sins.  I'll not try to hide it nor will I claim to be sinless.  Instead, I'll simply confess that and based on these passages, I have confidence my God will cleanse me via the blood of my Lord and Savior.


----------



## Bama4me

RH Clark said:


> I would say that you are forgiven at the moment that you originally prayed at salvation.



BTW, if nothing we do as a "work" affects our salvation, why do you say "you are forgiven at the moment that you originally prayed at salvation"?  How come prayer BEFORE one is saved isn't categorized as a "work", but prayer AFTER one is saved is considered a "work"?


----------



## RH Clark

Bama4me said:


> Then your answer would "no... prayer is not necessary."
> 
> The word "if" in 1 John 1:7ff is conditional.  In other words, if the conditions specified are not met, then the result is not given.  Thus, IF...
> * We don't walk in the light, we have no forgiveness.
> * We say we have sin, we don't deceive ourselves.
> * We don't confess our sins, God will not forgive us.
> * We say we have sinned, we don't make God a liar.
> 
> Since the letter was written to Christians (not unbelievers), this is not talking about a confession at the time of one's conversion... but an ongoing process.  In fact, the Greek tense of "confess" supports the conditional word "if" - it's in the present tense (action continuing into the future).  Based on these things, the answer is "a Christian who stops confessing his sins to God is a Christian who no longer enjoys forgiveness for his/her sins."
> 
> You seem to be hung up on "each sin".  When I pray in a prayer "God please forgive me of my sins", I have done exactly what Jesus modeled in Luke 11:4 and I do what 1 John 1:9 asks of me.  Today, as I pray, I'll acknowledge to my God that I have sins on my account... and I'll ask His forgiveness for those sins.  I'll not try to hide it nor will I claim to be sinless.  Instead, I'll simply confess that and based on these passages, I have confidence my God will cleanse me via the blood of my Lord and Savior.



 You sir are delusional. You say I'm hung up on each sin but in fact you are the one who is hung up on every sin with your "if" clause argument. You continue to say that you are not forgiven "if" you don't confess. That is not what 1 John 1:9 teaches and you won't find that doctrine anywhere else either. The scriptures speak of repentance and faith in God. 

I say that verse is speaking of acknowledging that we are sinners needing forgiveness not a clause that says that you aren't forgiven "if" you don't confess each sin.

You are not teaching the Gospel of Christ. Nowhere in the Gospels will you find a person that was saved being told that they had to confess every sin. Jesus would simply see their repentance and call them forgiven. He didn't take them aside and tell them "now confess your sins or you won't be forgiven."


----------



## gemcgrew

Three more pages and the six year old thread is locked.


----------



## Israel

A brother understood that "not knowing anything against himself" did not equate to innocence. I believe he was prepared to pursue that innocence, if, and as, and when he was made aware of things (if any) against himself. Being diligent to, as is commonly called "keep short accounts" with the Lord is, to me, anyway, a healthy thing. But, if a man is not made aware, but knows he can trust to be made aware, I have little doubt  that agreements with the Lord as to things not seemly will be taking place.
Who of us doubts "we all offend in many ways"? And, though being a source of offense in no way must indicate our own shortcomings, might we be found foolish if we were to take the stand that "it could never be me..."?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Do you mean that a person is unchanged by redemption?



And now we are back to fruits. No fruits, no salvation. Believe all you want but if you didn't change, the salvation didn't work. Your election was false.

Free will, election, grace, mercy, faith, etc. mean nothing without proof in the form of fruit.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Does that answer the question?



Just presented as an example. God is in control but man has free will.

Man is saved by God alone but only if man prays, confesses, repents, produces fruit, forgives others, doesn't do evil deeds such as overeat, drink too much, or perform homosexual sex. 
A man is saved only if he believes in the Trinity. Or is it Oneness?
Only if he spreads the gospel, feeds the sick, is meek and humble, and not prideful.
A man is saved but only if he believes in he11 and election. Or is it freewill. Wouldn't one have to have free will in order to accept the invitation?  Otherwise he didn't believe in Jesus on his own accord.
I'll just say, God will have mercy on whom he'll have mercy.
I'm not sure how he chooses or hardens. I'll leave that up to him.

Romans 11:29-33

29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.33Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!


----------



## hummerpoo

gemcgrew said:


> Three more pages and the six year old thread is locked.



I've been watching that number also.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> A brother understood that "not knowing anything against himself" did not equate to innocence. I believe he was prepared to pursue that innocence, if, and as, and when he was made aware of things (if any) against himself. Being diligent to, as is commonly called "keep short accounts" with the Lord is, to me, anyway, a healthy thing. But, if a man is not made aware, but knows he can trust to be made aware, I have little doubt  that agreements with the Lord as to things not seemly will be taking place.
> Who of us doubts "we all offend in many ways"? And, though being a source of offense in no way must indicate our own shortcomings, might we be found foolish if we were to take the stand that "it could never be me..."?



It is difficult to think about these things without remembering our type in weakness and mentor in strength David, who starts with: " O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me."

and ends with: "Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:  And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> And now we are back to fruits. No fruits, no salvation. Believe all you want but if you didn't change, the salvation didn't work. Your election was false.
> 
> Free will, election, grace, mercy, faith, etc. mean nothing without proof in the form of fruit.



Men may tell you " No fruits, no salvation".
I believe scripture and Spirit says "No salvation, no fruits".


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Just presented as an example. God is in control but man has free will.
> 
> Man is saved by God alone but only if man prays, confesses, repents, produces fruit, forgives others, doesn't do evil deeds such as overeat, drink too much, or perform homosexual sex.
> A man is saved only if he believes in the Trinity. Or is it Oneness?
> Only if he spreads the gospel, feeds the sick, is meek and humble, and not prideful.
> A man is saved but only if he believes in he11 and election. Or is it freewill. Wouldn't one have to have free will in order to accept the invitation?  Otherwise he didn't believe in Jesus on his own accord.
> I'll just say, God will have mercy on whom he'll have mercy.
> I'm not sure how he chooses or hardens. I'll leave that up to him.
> 
> Romans 11:29-33
> 
> 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.33Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!



You started out there with quite a rant.  I checked your total posts number; your bound to hit 50,000 questions before the year is out, maybe before the middle of the year.

Try taking a break.  Read Romans 7 three or more times a day for 25 days, and meditate on one verse per day (all day) for the 25 days.


----------



## welderguy

hummerpoo said:


> Men may tell you " No fruits, no salvation".
> I believe scripture and Spirit says "No salvation, no fruits".



Amen Hummer.
Man likes to turn it around backwards,I guess to try to get some undeserved glory.
Like I always say though, the apple tree doesn't give apples to become an apple tree;it gives apples BECAUSE it's an apple tree.
Praise God for that.It's His goodness that's worked in us that compels us,none of ourselves.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> You started out there with quite a rant.  I checked your total posts number; your bound to hit 50,000 questions before the year is out, maybe before the middle of the year.
> 
> Try taking a break.  Read Romans 7 three or more times a day for 25 days, and meditate on one verse per day (all day) for the 25 days.



OK, and will you please read Romans 11 three more times.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> OK, and will you please read Romans 11 three more times.



Sure.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> I prefer "easy believism" over "lordship salvation." I sold my Religious Rollercoaster ticket a few years ago.



When I read this I instantly thought of the incorrectly narrow definition of repentance that you have developed.
I think this guy nailed it.



> Sometime I think we make that more difficult than it should be. Repentance means turning from our ways. We like our thinking, because it is our thinking. But it is not as good as God's thinking! We have to come to that realization! It should be obvious, but because we do like our way of thinking, we just don't considered God knowing more than we do!


Does this not reflected in your preference (your word) for easy-believeism over Lordship salvation? IOW You will not let Jesus/God be Lord, and only He can do that for you.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> A brother understood that "not knowing anything against himself" did not equate to innocence. I believe he was prepared to pursue that innocence, if, and as, and when he was made aware of things (if any) against himself. Being diligent to, as is commonly called "keep short accounts" with the Lord is, to me, anyway, a healthy thing. But, if a man is not made aware, but knows he can trust to be made aware, I have little doubt  that agreements with the Lord as to things not seemly will be taking place.
> Who of us doubts "we all offend in many ways"? And, though being a source of offense in no way must indicate our own shortcomings, might we be found foolish if we were to take the stand that "it could never be me..."?


To be made aware is necessary. But man takes this awareness, this trusting, this asking forgiveness, etc. He takes all of these things and places them in a list titled "What must I do?". In the matter of salvation, he drags this list in as if it belongs in the discussion. He commits the most egregious categorical error. 

"Salvation is of the Lord!" Jonah 2:9

Yes there is a list, but it belongs under the title "What will the Sovereign Christ do for me?"

"As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." John 17:2


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> To be made aware is necessary. But man takes this awareness, this trusting, this asking forgiveness, etc. He takes all of these things and places them in a list titled "What must I do?". In the matter of salvation, he drags this list in as if it belongs in the discussion. He commits the most egregious categorical error.
> 
> "Salvation is of the Lord!" Jonah 2:9
> 
> Yes there is a list, but it belongs under the title "What will the Sovereign Christ do for me?"
> 
> "As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." John 17:2



amen.
these matters have been with me much the last few days, through simple things...almost silly things.
It seems there is not one thing, as you mention, that is given as gift...and to which we then add bridle and bit. 
I am ashamed.
A sister, known for her candor in things spiritual has many quotes attributed to her. She is reputed to have said things like:
"No man can enter heaven without first entering into himself."

"I do not love God. I do not even want to love God. But I do want to want to love God"

In her speaking to the Lord she is quoted as having once said this: 

"If this is the way you treat your friends, no wonder you have so few of them"

On the face, no doubt, these, if left to themselves as  spiritual sum could generate a considerable amount of squabble...and probably an equal length of commentary in the forms of books. Probably a lot of men like me would set out to prove "how much more we truly love the Lord". 

But I cannot deny being the man who once said after certain dealings of such frustration and manifest testing...when over...as of that situation in a now more tranquil anchorage..."Lord, it is as though you are always trying to take advantage of my good nature!" How laughable _after_...but how sorry a soul, how benighted in reason, how darkened as to nature of relationship, when in the midst of such, resorts to the seeming reality of such a phrase inwardly. But, I am what I am. I can be no more...unless made to be more.

This making of what we call "more", or amongst some perhaps, a "better" man...or better christian, (or "true" christian) I have been forced to surrender to the notion that the Lord is not quite as interested at all in our idea of being made "good"...as his perception of us being made "real". Into this fits this truth without irritability "You who are neither hot nor cold I vomit from my mouth"
Oh, yes, I can see the "hot" being kept...hot in love and pursuit, hot in the fire of the spirit, hot in desire for God. Yes, that makes sense.
But cold? Cold? Cold to God, cold to his will, cold to his way, to His Son... "his people"? To this a man must be "made aware"... "I am cold to God". That there is a promise here of _being kept_, of remaining swallowed...and not spewed...well, here a man may just find what we call salvation. Though it seems so odd. Odd as in making the Valley of Achor...that place where Achan hid the accursed thing and paid a deep price and troubled all of Israel, beside. That making of that Valley...a door of hope.

Look. A brother called the other day.  My wife approaches me on the carport as I am hoping to make some use of the last rays of sun to plant potatoes, after a day of what now seems spinning my wheels on another "project". Oh, I haven't been brought yet to that place...where "project"...once a delight...is now seen as me having transformed it into a "labor"...riding me like an unpaid bill. 

But it is, nevertheless, though my complete lack of awareness doesn't sense the present frustrations as a "STOP!" "I will press through!" I will at least get these seed potatoes...in the ground...I will have something when I put my head to pillow that I can smile for! I will use "today"...to wring some satisfaction from it!

"God wants me happy!" and I have surely told him a thousand times of his great wisdom and mercy of moving me "to the country"...where I can have a garden, where I can "build stuff" (projects)...and do "fun things." I tell him daily. Thanks for this gift! Thanks that I can watch the great grands run around barefoot and in their underwear outside without a care..."how lovely!" we laugh..."they are growing up real country kids...simple and delightful". "Thanks Father!"

But as my wife approaches "you have a phone call" (me...no one ever calls me...or so rarely it seems and now? Now when I have already made the furrow for the taters? Now...UGH! How inopportune! My ugh is so loud as easily heard through the phone outstretched in her hand. She tells me who it is...and I "know"...I must recompose, 

I "have to" take this call...and I say to my shame...that at that moment it is more because I do not want this brother to think ill of me...I "prefer" his good opinion. (My wife would tell me later, I knew you needed that call)

I know the ugh was heard because the call starts with "hey brother, it sounds like I caught you in the middle of doing something" But, we talk. And talk some more. And I am told funny stories, pointed stories, mixed with words of encouragement and comfort. Stories about someone trying to relate to another how that after being given the greatest gift a man could give...a recipient balks at understanding all else is now in his to use and have, as also gift...because he has already been entrusted with the greater gift. 

And, I am ashamed. And so very very rightly so. But not the shame that makes you feel "bad"...the shame that when "right"...makes you SEE. Makes you...compels you...drives you...to see. The shame that makes you see, the shame of not wanting to appear as you are to someone, of thinking you should "appear more". And, the shame that helps you see you have taken a gift...and turned it into your burden. The shame that helps you see your frustrations...are something you grabbed at yourself...and it is all and only...what you of yourself...can do.

But someone has come to interrupt them...though at first he appears greatest frustration of all. He is willing to appear that, though it be everything He is not. He is willing to appear as "interruptor" when he is indeed Alpha and Omega. As one who died, but in whom is all Life. Willing to appear as sin, when righteousness is all 'of Him".

And so this brother ends his call with "I love you brother"...and I weakly respond, "I love you, too". Does he know the weakness of my response to his gift? Does he see it? He surely doesn't indicate anything to betray a shame at me. But, I. I see myself. I see. I see Jesus interrupted my plans, came unwanted, and unbidden, came at an hour I not only didn't expect...but at a time I really (previously would have said ) "not now". Just to tell me, "I love you brother"...in stories and time spent on "his end" of finding me worthy of "his time" to help such a blind blind man.
(Wife is so often right...yet I would still find myself "trying to change her"...God help such a man, who is so manifestly shown time and time again...how wrong he really is)

And so, now, to such a man...it is a great comfort the "cold" stay swallowed, the one who imagines himself so hot for God...and ready. Ready always it seems...with only bridle and bit, not knowing it is only suited to him. For he made it for himself. And he is so tired of feeling "ridden"...but where to look, where to look...for a free ride?


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel, thank you for sharing your thoughts. As I pondered them, I walked away with many things to mind. Two things stood out to me.

A typical brother is a wonderful thing to behold.

Mercy and Grace rules the day. As it did... as it does... as it will.


----------



## hobbs27

The Almighty God that cannot lie, said He never saw this coming.

Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> The Almighty God that cannot lie, said He never saw this coming.
> 
> Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:



He saw it coming alright.He's omniscient and omnipresent.
Look at this:

Isaiah 46:10
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"

You might need to rethink your interpretation of Jer.19:5.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> He saw it coming alright.He's omniscient and omnipresent.
> Look at this:
> 
> Isaiah 46:10
> "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"
> 
> You might need to rethink your interpretation of Jer.19:5.



My interpretation? God said it never entered His mind. How do you interpret that?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> My interpretation? God said it never entered His mind. How do you interpret that?



He's not saying He did not know it would happen.To say that would contradict His omniscience.
He's saying it was not His will that they do those abominable acts.
They went against His will in the doing of it by their own wicked will.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> He's not saying He did not know it would happen.To say that would contradict His omniscience.
> He's saying it was not His will that they do those abominable acts.
> They went against His will in the doing of it by their own wicked will.



Could it not be that God Himself could choose to know what He wants, and maybe He chose not to know this?

 It never entered His mind. Sorry if that goes against your rules for God , but it is the word.


----------



## gemcgrew

Hobbs, the contradiction is in your mind. A study of precepts and decrees may assist you with the perceived contradiction.


----------



## Israel

I see that the Sandy Hook people are being allowed to go forward with their suit against the gun makers.
I wonder, if they do, and protest much about "what it's not about", but instead seek to make an issue palatable about what they "hope it will be about" some might see there an indictment of their own participation in "for profit" business.
Is the toothpick maker responsible in some way for the destruction of the rain forests? Is the software engineer culpable, in some way, for the programs used by terrorists to communicate surreptitiously and Apple guilty as well for all the times IED's have been triggered? 
Am I, when paid to use plastic syringes to administer sedation (Plastic bags of fluids and lines) so a patient will be comfortable (as possible) through a procedure, contributing to over burdened land fills? Air pollution? Who is not able to follow me home and find me laughing with my babies, laughing as we plant seeds for watermelons and say "This! You ruin the world for your pleasures...you would have us think you are a help...but you do it for pay...and for yourself! Look at what you are able to do with your despoiling of the world! You laugh...while we all die"
Who, then is not "guilty" of being, and of _the using_ in that being?

The housebuilder...and his diesel material's truck? Paid for in support of an industry that produces plastic and steel 70 MPH weapons responsible for countless deaths.
The grower of hops and barley?
The farm implement maker...whose wares are used to plant tobacco?
Me...for using so much bandwidth? Or any...at all, as has been used to point that out?
Who...is not guilty? Of fiddling...while Rome burns?


Unless of course, it is "right"...that Rome burns. That something "better" be formed of ashes. 

So, what is bad if one believe in the resurrection? 

And what isn't,_ if one does not?_


----------



## hobbs27

gemcgrew said:


> Hobbs, the contradiction is in your mind. A study of precepts and decrees may assist you with the perceived contradiction.



So, how did this never enter His mind?


----------



## gemcgrew

welderguy said:


> He's not saying He did not know it would happen.To say that would contradict His omniscience.


Of course.


welderguy said:


> He's saying it was not His will that they do those abominable acts.
> They went against His will in the doing of it by their own wicked will.


Of course not.


----------



## hobbs27

Hosea 8:44 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.

I don't understand this, How could they do this without God's knowing?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Does God have a mind or is that another anthropomorphism?

Wouldn't God be restricted from change do to his  omniscience? Since God can't change, he's limited his own free will.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Hosea 8:4
They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval. With their silver and gold they make idols for themselves to their own destruction.

Maybe God knew it but they did it without his approval. They didn't have God's approval. This would require free will.


----------



## Artfuldodger

How can someone go against God's will? Why pray for God's will to be done? I'm pretty sure God's will, will be done.

"They chose their own kings, kings I didn't approve."


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Hosea 8:4
> They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval. With their silver and gold they make idols for themselves to their own destruction.
> 
> Maybe God knew it but they did it without his approval. They didn't have God's approval. This would require free will.



That translation makes more sense to me, but is still going to trouble some.


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> Hosea 8:44 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.
> 
> I don't understand this, How could they do this without God's knowing?



Maybe the blue?


----------



## Israel

"Depart from me, I never knew you..."

Huh? Jesus the ignorant?


----------



## hobbs27

Israel said:


> "Depart from me, I never knew you..."
> 
> Huh? Jesus the ignorant?



Context...


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> How can someone go against God's will? Why pray for God's will to be done? I'm pretty sure God's will, will be done.
> 
> "They chose their own kings, kings I didn't approve."



God's will isn't always done! That's why Jesus told us to pray that God's will be done! God gave man free will and gave the earth to man. That's what I've been trying to get across this whole time, but the predestinators won't allow it. They want everything to happen because it's God's will. That simply isn't true. The scripture clearly says that God would have none perish but come to the knowledge of Christ, yet many will go against God's will and perish by rejecting Him.


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> Context...



what is it of the context that might influence one way or the other as to the Lord's awareness?


----------



## Havana Dude

Because God gave you free will. What you are asking is for God to take over your life. That won't happen. You can't have it both ways. Either you want God to control your life, or you want the free will. I choose the latter, and take my lumps.


----------



## hobbs27

Israel said:


> what is it of the context that might influence one way or the other as to the Lord's awareness?



And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Jesus knew them enough to know they practiced lawlessness, but He didn't " know" them as brothers or in a relationship way.


----------



## welderguy

There's the straight road and there's two ditches,one on each side.IMO,some are in the left ditch and some are in the right ditch when it comes to free will and predestination.

Simple scriptural explanation:..(the way I see it anyway)

Jesus is the Shepherd of His chosen sheep(which were chosen before creation)(predestination)
Jesus laid down His life for His sheep.
His sheep hear His voice and afterwards follow Him.
From time to time,as sheep are prone to do,they go astray.(free will that's contrary to His will)
As the good Shepherd,He always goes after the sheep and faithfully chastens to bring them back to the protective obedience of His sovereign will.

The sheep's so called "free will" is always kept in check under the umbrella of the Shepherd's sovereign will.


----------



## gemcgrew

welderguy said:


> There's the straight road and there's two ditches,one on each side.IMO,some are in the left ditch and some are in the right ditch when it comes to free will and predestination.
> 
> Simple scriptural explanation:..(the way I see it anyway)
> 
> Jesus is the Shepherd of His chosen sheep(which were chosen before creation)(predestination)
> Jesus laid down His life for His sheep.
> His sheep hear His voice and afterwards follow Him.
> From time to time,as sheep are prone to do,they go astray.(free will that's contrary to His will)
> As the good Shepherd,He always goes after the sheep and faithfully chastens to bring them back to the protective obedience of His sovereign will.
> 
> The sheep's so called "free will" is always kept in check under the umbrella of the Shepherd's sovereign will.


Some have a foot in the right ditch and the other foot in the left ditch. They appear to be stuck there, straddling.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> There's the straight road and there's two ditches,one on each side.IMO,some are in the left ditch and some are in the right ditch when it comes to free will and predestination.
> 
> Simple scriptural explanation:..(the way I see it anyway)
> 
> Jesus is the Shepherd of His chosen sheep(which were chosen before creation)(predestination)
> Jesus laid down His life for His sheep.
> His sheep hear His voice and afterwards follow Him.
> From time to time,as sheep are prone to do,they go astray.(free will that's contrary to His will)
> As the good Shepherd,He always goes after the sheep and faithfully chastens to bring them back to the protective obedience of His sovereign will.
> 
> The sheep's so called "free will" is always kept in check under the umbrella of the Shepherd's sovereign will.




I think that's the way most free will believers see it. It's limited free will or only the impression of free will. If God  intervenes only to keep in check then yes. If God controls the way the wind blows then no.


----------



## welderguy

gemcgrew said:


> Some have a foot in the right ditch and the other foot in the left ditch. They appear to be stuck there, straddling.



Is it I? Am I the straddler?
Give it to me straight.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> Some have a foot in the right ditch and the other foot in the left ditch. They appear to be stuck there, straddling.



That's me to a "T." One day I'm in control, the next day God is in control. I like to tempt fate. I think I'll start eating better and exercising more to increase my physical life span.
God can still intervene and take me out if he has already pre-planned my death day and way.

Maybe God controls 95%, Satan 2%, chance 1%, and me 2%.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Is it I? Am I the straddler?
> Give it to me straight.



If it's the way you described in #977, then yes. If you believe that man has free will that is contrary to God's will. That man can do what he wants and God will intervene and change his actions. God basing his decisions on ours. Man praying and God changing. Man screwing up and God fixing it.
God having a plan A, man changing this and God going to plan B. 
Example would be if Adam had not sinned or if the Jews had not hung Jesus on a Cross. Would God not have given his Son? 
It was God who gave us his Son. Not the Jews, Pontius Pilate, the Romans, or Satan.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I would think the Bible story to be more interesting if the events happened by random acts and freewill.  Maybe God jumping in every once in a while to make the plot go correctly. If God was acting more as a narrator than writer. God only writing the beginning and end. If the wind blows by weather actions and I get sick by random viruses that I just randomly pick up. That I can pray for God to remove it. That my wife was just some random girl I met by chance. That my days aren't numbered to a certain day. That I chose my wife and I chose God. That flat tires just happen. Same with zits. That my physical appearance is from genetics. A little of each maybe, God, genetics, randomness, fate, chance, free will, happenstance.

The Alpha and Omega but not everything in between. God occasionally wearing blinders.

For every human action a Godly reaction.


----------



## welderguy

Let's look at the book of Jonah.God told Jonah to go preach to Ninevah.That was God's spoken will that Jonah was to obey.But,Jonah went toward Tarsus instead.He disobeyed the spoken will of God.So God chastened Jonah and afterward he did what God originally commanded him to do.

My point is: God will bring you from point A to point B. We can go in obedience to His revealed will and enjoy fellowship with Him,or we can try to go contrary to His revealed will and suffer many consequences and still end up where God purposed in the end.


----------



## gemcgrew

welderguy said:


> Is it I? Am I the straddler?
> Give it to me straight.


Yes.

God is sovereign. Man is not free.

The Apostles could do nothing of themselves. Yet, man would have us to believe that unregenerate man can do something of himself.


----------



## welderguy

gemcgrew said:


> Yes.
> 
> God is sovereign. Man is not free.
> 
> The Apostles could do nothing of themselves. Yet, man would have us to believe that unregenerate man can do something of himself.



I agree that God is sovereign.I also believe He is sovereign in His allowances.
Meaning He allows us to go contrary to Him(sin),that He might teach us obedience.I do not believe He causes us to sin.

Notice it says God had prepared a great fish for Jonah.He already had the chastening in the workings,or you might say the salvation from drowning in the workings.


----------



## gemcgrew

welderguy said:


> I agree that God is sovereign.I also believe He is sovereign in His allowances.
> Meaning He allows us to go contrary to Him(sin),that He might teach us obedience.I do not believe He causes us to sin.


Brother, "allow" and "cause" have essentially the same meaning.

I'm all in.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> Yes.
> 
> God is sovereign. Man is not free.
> 
> The Apostles could do nothing of themselves. Yet, man would have us to believe that unregenerate man can do something of himself.



Did God give up any sovereignty when he became a "man?"
If man or the apostles could do nothing of themselves, wouldn't it stand to reason that neither could Jesus?


----------



## welderguy

gemcgrew said:


> Brother, "allow" and "cause" have essentially the same meaning.
> 
> I'm all in.



We know God hardened pharaohs heart and knew full well what the consequence would be,but I can not say God directly caused him to rebell and sin.(God is not the author of sin ,neither tempteth He any man.)
God didn't tempt pharaoh.He revealed His will through Moses and Aaron.Pharaoh rebelled against God's revealed will.Then there were consequences.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> We know God hardened pharaohs heart and knew full well what the consequence would be,but I can not say God directly caused him to rebell and sin.(God is not the author of sin ,neither tempteth He any man.)
> God didn't tempt pharaoh.He revealed His will through Moses and Aaron.Pharaoh rebelled against God's revealed will.Then there were consequences.



Romans 11:8
as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day."

Romans 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,

If pharaoh had a choice or the Jews, why was the Word with God from the beginning? What was God's plan B if pharaoh or the Jews had free will or were of the elect? Could you imagine if the Potter had molded pharaoh for another purpose? Things wouldn't have went down the way God had wanted them to and God's plan would have been dependent on man's plan if pharaoh had free will.

If pharaoh was of the elect then God could not have used him for his purpose. God would have chosen another piece of clay.


----------



## Israel

Artfuldodger said:


> Did God give up any sovereignty when he became a "man?"
> If man or the apostles could do nothing of themselves, wouldn't it stand to reason that neither could Jesus?



yes. And Jesus said so.


----------



## Artfuldodger

It also stands to reason that if God only has mercy on whom he has mercy, there are a lot of individuals walking around that aren't going to make it.
God hardening peoples hearts is no different. If Pharaoh never had a chance but too rebel, why not use him for your mission? If he was never of the elect, he never could come to God anyway.


----------



## Israel

Of election the scripture teaches.
Of God's love the scripture teaches.
Of the salvation and judgement the scripture teaches.
But of all the testimony One remains as true and faithful witness, and to him are men called that in and through Him alone man might discover the truth. In Him are all these things given to be made known, and I believe, only in Him are these things understood. Christ is the sum of all, the totality of all, the beginning and end of all. In him is mercy, and judgment.
How much of our discussion really boils down to little more than ..."but what about "them"?
And I believe we all know of Jesus' reply.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> Of election the scripture teaches.
> Of God's love the scripture teaches.
> Of the salvation and judgement the scripture teaches.
> But of all the testimony One remains as true and faithful witness, and to him are men called that in and through Him alone man might discover the truth. In Him are all these things given to be made known, and I believe, only in Him are these things understood. Christ is the sum of all, the totality of all, the beginning and end of all. In him is mercy, and judgment.
> How much of our discussion really boils down to little more than ..."but what about "them"?
> And I believe we all know of Jesus' reply.


Amen!

All things.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> We know God hardened pharaohs heart and knew full well what the consequence would be,but I can not say God directly caused him to rebell and sin.(God is not the author of sin ,neither tempteth He any man.)
> God didn't tempt pharaoh.He revealed His will through Moses and Aaron.Pharaoh rebelled against God's revealed will.Then there were consequences.



I commented on the hardening of Pharaoh earlier in this thread but will explain again since it apparently didn't take.

According to Greek scholars God didn't harden Pharaoh in the sense of not allowing him to do right. God hardened him by insisting he do what he didn't want to do. It is the same as saying a mother angered a child who was already mad ,when she insisted that he do what he didn't want to do. The mother didn't intentionally make the child angry but the child was angered even more by the mother when she posed a situation to the child he didn't agree with.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> Brother, "allow" and "cause" have essentially the same meaning.
> 
> I'm all in.



Not at all!  If I legally lease you a house, you can do lawful things in it that I don't approve of or cause, yet I would be unjust to take back possession before the end of the lease. 

In this same way, God has given dominion of the earth, and authority in it over to man. This is why God has needed to use men to accomplish anything in the earth and why God himself had to become a man to come to earth and take back from Satan what he stole from man.
When the lease of man is expired, God will take back the earth and set all things right.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> Not at all!  If I legally lease you a house, you can do lawful things in it that I don't approve of or cause, yet I would be unjust to take back possession before the end of the lease.
> 
> In this same way, God has given dominion of the earth, and authority in it over to man. This is why God has needed to use men to accomplish anything in the earth and why God himself had to become a man to come to earth and take back from Satan what he stole from man.
> When the lease of man is expired, God will take back the earth and set all things right.


No.

God is not a man!


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> No.
> 
> God is not a man!



Not the Father, but the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Don't you know that Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man? Jesus was both God and man.

The price of sin had to be paid by a man. Man owed the debt, not God. God became man and paid the debt of man as a man. Jesus also kept the law as a man so in Jesus Man both perfectly kept the law without sin and also paid the price of all men who couldn't keep the law without sin.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 9:17
For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> Not the Father, but the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Don't you know that Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man? Jesus was both God and man.
> 
> The price of sin had to be paid by a man. Man owed the debt, not God. God became man and paid the debt of man as a man. Jesus also kept the law as a man so in Jesus Man both perfectly kept the law without sin and also paid the price of all men who couldn't keep the law without sin.


Mr Clark, none of your arguments apply to me. They are mindless of God and the supremacy of Christ.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> Not at all!  If I legally lease you a house, you can do lawful things in it that I don't approve of or cause, yet I would be unjust to take back possession before the end of the lease.
> 
> In this same way, God has given dominion of the earth, and authority in it over to man. This is why God has needed to use men to accomplish anything in the earth and why God himself had to become a man to come to earth and take back from Satan what he stole from man.
> When the lease of man is expired, God will take back the earth and set all things right.



This is merely an attempt to elevate man, in his likeness to God, beyond what he is revealed to be. There is only one God-Man.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> Mr Clark, none of your arguments apply to me. They are mindless of God and the supremacy of Christ.



In no way does my statement diminish the supremacy of Christ. Do you deny that Jesus was flesh or that he was the Son of man? Do you deny that Jesus was a man?

I'm not saying that Jesus is not God. What I'm saying is that Jesus was both God and man.


----------



## RH Clark

hummerpoo said:


> This is merely an attempt to elevate man, in his likeness to God, beyond what he is revealed to be. There is only one God-Man.



No one elevates man except God. Does God not say that you are his son and a joint heir with Jesus? Yet, I'm not even attempting to elevate man, just show you a truth that your tradition refuses to see.


----------



## gemcgrew

RH Clark said:


> In no way does my statement diminish the supremacy of Christ. Do you deny that Jesus was flesh or that he was the Son of man? Do you deny that Jesus was a man?
> 
> I'm not saying that Jesus is not God. What I'm saying is that Jesus was both God and man.


You used #998 to reinforce #996. I was not surprised.


----------



## hummerpoo

RH Clark said:


> No one elevates man except God. Does God not say that you are his son and a joint heir with Jesus? Yet, I'm not even attempting to elevate man, just show you a truth that your tradition refuses to see.


----------



## RH Clark

gemcgrew said:


> You used #998 to reinforce #996. I was not surprised.



I'm not surprised either, that I'm just wasting my time here trying to teach anything.


----------



## hummerpoo

It does seem that most who visit here do so out of an interest in theology rather than anthropology.


----------



## Israel

RH Clark said:


> God's will isn't always done! That's why Jesus told us to pray that God's will be done! God gave man free will and gave the earth to man. That's what I've been trying to get across this whole time, but the predestinators won't allow it. They want everything to happen because it's God's will. That simply isn't true. The scripture clearly says that God would have none perish but come to the knowledge of Christ, yet many will go against God's will and perish by rejecting Him.





> I'm not surprised either, that I'm just wasting my time here trying to teach anything.



 It is then either God's will you waste your time, or you have not prayed believing while in being here.

I believe there could be another position...do you?
Or, is nothing learned in frustration?
It's not my "favorite" way of seeing anything...by far. But even though God knows that even better than I, he loves me even more...than I detest frustration. 

It's so...different. I could only call it perfect. (I know, I know...it sounds like I am asking for "more"...)
But, remember the marvelous things Jonah heard...so deep and glorious, when he was so upset over that little worm...God caused.
So, if you are, like Jonah...(and often not unlike me at all) "angry enough to die"...or just leave...well, it's a wonderful thing to see how much time we have wasted, if, and when we are "allowed" to...or we can just go on...never knowing...and perhaps find out something far worse...when we have none left, in which to "rethink".
It's never a waste of time when given time to discover "I am not right".


----------



## welderguy

RHclark,
Don't be discouraged brother.We are all learning and none of us knows it all.We haven't even scratched the surface of the wonderful knowledge of God.
FWIW,I agree with many things you say,and the things I don't,I just love you anyway.I hope you do the same for me.
I pray God will give us all patience and a longsuffering spirit,and above all,fervent charity for one another.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> RHclark,
> Don't be discouraged brother.We are all learning and none of us knows it all.We haven't even scratched the surface of the wonderful knowledge of God.
> FWIW,I agree with many things you say,and the things I don't,I just love you anyway.I hope you do the same for me.
> I pray God will give us all patience and a longsuffering spirit,and above all,fervent charity for one another.



Amen!


----------



## RH Clark

I want to say thanks to Welderguy and Artfuldodger. It's not that I think I know everything and have all the answers while everyone else is wrong. I would just love to be able to agree enough that we could build upon revelation from each other to the edifying of all, rather than argue and contend every statement ad nauseam.


----------



## Israel

When Jesus exposes, as he does expose, all lies and facades we have embraced in our mistaken bid for ascendancy, we find ourselves in a curious place "on what then, can I stand?" If "all of the me" is a lie, and all of the me is exposed as the lover and maker of lies, it becomes plain ...there is no place for the me to be, in truth. Yet, I am. This is where a soul must be led. Must be. Cannot "not be" led. But it is to this leader of the soul, all is owed. This is where salvation is found.
Yes, it is the most curious of places. Where the soul cannot "come up" with one thing to commend itself, not one thing to tell itself it has, or is, or has done to merit life. It recognizes here, perhaps finally, all is gift, or there is nothing. When, the "I am good" has been shown as the most depraved deceit is most plain. Also, "I want to be good" is shown no less. Even "but I think being good is a good idea"...crumbles and falls in our sight. 
The soul would seek _to be_ at the expense of all else, particularly the very will of God. 
No one becomes God's friend without seeing what an enemy he has been. Like Achan of old, he has stolen an accursed thing and hid it in his tent...thinking it is, in its wonder to him, a source, the source of his life. "If I have this "thing"...I may be."
Now, one could think, I don't like this way, I don't accept this way, may even have the light enough to proclaim "I cannot" accept this way. That, at least, is a start. Nothing to commend, nothing on which, or by which to make appeal to "being"...as having a right to it. All our being _is derived being_. Even nature teaches us that on the most fundamental of levels. Things must die that I live. I eat life. Or, I am not.
The agreement to salvation is made totally apart from us, in that most real of senses. We don't "decide" to make Jesus Lord. We don't decide he has risen from the dead...we don't decide to agree with all done in the counsel and will of God is...what is...from before we knew being. It is not merely an "at best" thing...it is finally seen as an "only" thing...if it is not the work "of another" to impose a knowing, to conquer the unknowing of us, to I say..."lay waste" to all we think we know...we are indeed lost to Him.
Forgive THEM Father, they don't know what they do" is ours, as and only, if we are forced to accept the truth as being the "them" in that. No man can put himself there by dint of will, reason, nor desire. Because no man is a "them" to themself.


----------



## welderguy

Thought this was an interesting contrast

Psalm 18:41 says this:
"They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the Lord, but he answered them not."

Then Psalm 50:15 says this:

" And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me."

Why the difference?

Ive heard many say that as long as you say a prayer you can be saved,but it sounds like that's not all there is to it.


----------



## Israel

welderguy said:


> Thought this was an interesting contrast
> 
> Psalm 18:41 says this:
> "They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the Lord, but he answered them not."
> 
> Then Psalm 50:15 says this:
> 
> " And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me."
> 
> Why the difference?
> 
> Ive heard many say that as long as you say a prayer you can be saved,but it sounds like that's not all there is to it.



A man can receive nothing except it be given him from above.

There is only One who walked and lives for the glory of another.
Behold, then, the kindness and severity of God.


----------



## rocket

welderguy said:


> RHclark,
> Don't be discouraged brother.We are all learning and none of us knows it all.We haven't even scratched the surface of the wonderful knowledge of God.
> FWIW,I agree with many things you say,and the things I don't,I just love you anyway.I hope you do the same for me.
> I pray God will give us all patience and a longsuffering spirit,and above all,fervent charity for one another.



Well said.


----------



## Jeffriesw

welderguy said:


> Thought this was an interesting contrast
> 
> Psalm 18:41 says this:
> "They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the Lord, but he answered them not."
> 
> Then Psalm 50:15 says this:
> 
> " And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me."
> 
> Why the difference?
> 
> Ive heard many say that as long as you say a prayer you can be saved,but it sounds like that's not all there is to it.





Israel said:


> A man can receive nothing except it be given him from above.
> 
> There is only One who walked and lives for the glory of another.
> Behold, then, the kindness and severity of God.



Well said Izzy,

John 
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”


----------



## clayservant

this is easy. 1  satan is the god of this world 
2 Corinthians 4:4King James Version (KJV)

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

2.  we christians do not use our God given power to stop him. 
Luke 9:1King James Version (KJV)

9 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.


Mark 11:23King James Version (KJV)

23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.


----------

