If I give you a billion dollars, what good is it if you never use it and put it in your attic? I have the ability to reject God's supernatural gift of faith, as well.
Only man can make faith worth anything. I would disagree. I believe that faith is more powerful than that.
That's because our idea of God is quite different. I believe that God is love and you believe that God forces people against their will to be dragged into "heaven", which would turn into a veritable hell for people who didn't want to be there...
All kidding aside, satan did not twist or misinterpret scripture, he fully MISQUOTED it, just as he did to Eve.
Satan didn't quote Scripture to Eve, and Satan didn't "misquote" Scriptures to Jesus. The point is that anyone can take a text of Scripture and make it say something totally different then its context.
I HAVE said time and time again that God graces some and passes over others. I don't see that as the same thing as "leading". Man is responsible for his actions because God has no responsibility or duty to save any particular man through gracing him. He does have a duty to save some unknowable number of His elect as He has already promised to. The reprobate are left to themselves. This is fair and just
God has a "duty" if He SAYS He desires ALL men to be saved, AND that Jesus died for the sin of ALL the world. You keep ignoring Scriptures on this, brother. If God is righteous, He does not say "I desire all men to be saved" and "Jesus died for the sin of the entire world" - AND THEN NOT give ALL men at least an ability to choose good or evil! This is a contradiction that remains in your Protestant view on this matter. IF man CANNOT choose the good without ANY of God's graces - and God does NOT give ANY grace, then exactly how is that just? If God says "FK, you can't get into heaven unless you benchpress 10,000 pounds by yourself", and He didn't spot you, would you consider God to be a fair and just God? Not by any definition of the word... And don't bother with the "our ways are not God's ways". If God acts this way, He no longer fits the human definition of "just". We must call Him something else.
I do think there is a real regeneration. The old has gone and the new has come. We are given a heart of flesh for our heart of stone
But this is meaningless in the practical world to you, since you believe that God must do EVERYTHING. We cannot even choose goodness AFTER our regeneration, so the "regeneration", the "heart of flesh" are just status terms with no real meaning. Utterly ridiculous. God MAKES people righteous in reality, not just legally!
You deny the Bible as an authority unto itself.
The Bible has authority because it has been RECOGNIZED as the part of the Word of God by the CHURCH! Otherwise, it would just be another historical book. The Church speaks for Bible's authority, since the Church wrote it!
To you, only (your) men are good enough to interpret it.
I have never said that! I only say that the heirarchy is legitimate interpreters when heresy is being taught. Interpretations must fit into the Holy Tradition given to the Apostles. There is only one faith, not many. The Bible is not meant to have many diverse and opposing meanings on the same subject. This is Relativism - every interpretation is as good as another. Really, is that what you are proposing? That man choose what God says? That certainly sounds like it. This makes Christianity a religion of man, rather than a revealed religion from God.
Proof? Well, then you have me beat. In any event, you would have a bunch of answers for every attempt, wouldn't you? That would negate the proof.
You are missing the point. IF the bible was meant to be argued over verses, WHO would make the decision on who was correct? Or does the Church split into factions? You tell me what is the intention of God here? One Church or many opposing churches. The fact of the matter is that man can come to the bible with many weird ideas and "prove" them from verses found within.
I just personally see it as being more consistent.
Science has given ample evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years, and that the earth is a round three-dimensional object that revolves around the sun. Perhaps you might disagree. But if so, it is not because science has given insufficient evidence. It is because you are stuck in the "literal sense only" mode of interpretation. Can you say unequivocably that God MEANT Genesis 1-3 to be taken literally? We DO NOT know that from the Bible ALONE! Nowhere does it say that it is NOT allegorical.
It causes me to keep on searching and learning everything I can, to bring me closer to Christ.
LOL! How do you know that a new theological viewpoint doesn't take you FURTHER from Christ's Truth? There is only one truth, and it is objective. It is not dependent on our opinions. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. You know this is the word of God - but you do not believe it. Ask yourself if you are REALLY searching for Truth or something that sounds good to YOU.
Regards
I wouldn't be dumb enough to reject your gift. It would be, effectively, no decision at all. Likewise, God knows how to offer the "equivalent" of that gift, which He already knows I must accept. He might offer it in different ways to different people, but for the elect, I don't think there is a real or meaningful "Yes-No" type of decision.
I believe that God is love and you believe that God forces people against their will to be dragged into "heaven", which would turn into a veritable hell for people who didn't want to be there...
Didn't we just cover this? God doesn't drag anyone kicking and screaming into heaven. The real estate is much too valuable to waste on such people. Rather, God transforms the minds of His elect to want to go to heaven. Isn't Paul the perfect example?
Satan didn't quote Scripture to Eve, and Satan didn't "misquote" Scriptures to Jesus. The point is that anyone can take a text of Scripture and make it say something totally different then its context.
satan says to Eve:
Gen. 3:1 : Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
satan is misquoting God when He said:
Gen. 2:16-17 : 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
satan knew DAMN well :) what God said, so this was an intentional misquote. ... In the desert, satan says:
Matt. 4:6 : 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
satan is misquoting from:
Ps. 91:11-12 : 11 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways; 12 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
---------------
God has a "duty" if He SAYS He desires ALL men to be saved, AND that Jesus died for the sin of ALL the world.
So finally, you do admit that you put a man-created duty on God for a non-decreed wish. This vindicates what I have been saying all along on this.
IF man CANNOT choose the good without ANY of God's graces - and God does NOT give ANY grace, then exactly how is that just?
I'm sure it doesn't match your sense of justice. God owes you an apology.
If God says "FK, you can't get into heaven unless you benchpress 10,000 pounds by yourself", and He didn't spot you, would you consider God to be a fair and just God?
Yes, of course. I didn't create heaven, and I have no moral claim to live there from myself. In addition, I am against illegal immigration. You, OTOH, appear to be in full support of illegal immigration as you place a duty on God to offer to let everyone in. God's sovereignty says that He can decide who will go to heaven. You reject that and place a duty on Him to measure up to your sense of justice.
If God acts this way, He no longer fits the human definition of "just". We must call Him something else.
No, we can still call him "Just". We just can't call Him subject to man's idea of justice.
FK: "I do think there is a real regeneration. The old has gone and the new has come. We are given a heart of flesh for our heart of stone."
But this is meaningless in the practical world to you, since you believe that God must do EVERYTHING.
No, just the opposite. In the PRACTICAL world, I experience everything just as you believe is real. Intellectually, I know what is really going on, but I don't experience it, practically. My experience in the real world is the same as yours, making choices.
The Bible has authority because it has been RECOGNIZED as the part of the Word of God by the CHURCH! Otherwise, it would just be another historical book. The Church speaks for Bible's authority, since the Church wrote it!
This was my understanding of your belief. But I don't understand why you still call it "God's word". It really isn't in your view, is it? The Church wrote it, so the Church owns it. The Church then declares it to be correct. The Church seems to take on the role of God's ghostwriter, doesn't it? It's more like "The Holy Bible...... by God ... with the Roman Catholic Church."
I only say that the hierarchy is legitimate interpreters when heresy is being taught.
That means always. Heresy is defined as anything that disagrees with the Church. I'm sure that everyone is a legitimate interpreter AS LONG AS he agrees with the Church. I know you've said you have some freedom on minor issues, but really, on anything of real importance, your view is that only the Church knows best, only your men are good enough, as I said.
IF the bible was meant to be argued over verses, WHO would make the decision on who was correct?
Whoever has the strongest argument based on the most salient scripture should be correct. I don't need a man to declare that for me.
You tell me what is the intention of God here? One Church or many opposing churches. The fact of the matter is that man can come to the bible with many weird ideas and "prove" them from verses found within.
I suppose it is a philosophical question of whether it is better to have only one Church, which might be corrupted utterly (in which case no one is saved), or which might be entirely correct; OR, is it better to have several independent churches, some of which are likely corrupt, but some of which are likely practicing the truth (at least some are saved). I admit I cannot give you an unbiased answer. :)
In either event, the reality is that there are going to be dissensions and separations among the faithful. I would not say absolutely that this is a bad thing. Unity would be best (God's non-decreed will), but if that cannot be had, I would not favor something like coerced faith in the name of unity, over separation. (And I don't think you're in favor of coerced faith :)
Can you say unequivocally that God MEANT Genesis 1-3 to be taken literally? We DO NOT know that from the Bible ALONE! Nowhere does it say that it is NOT allegorical.
I just told you in the other post that I do not say that. I told you that my current belief is in a young earth. I am happy to listen to Biblically supported arguments to the contrary, and I might change my view. Since I do not see persuasive evidence that it is allegory, for now I will take Genesis at face value.
How do you know that a new theological viewpoint doesn't take you FURTHER from Christ's Truth?
It is a matter of discernment. If I have enough, then I will see it, if not, then I will wander aimlessly. I believe that discernment is a gift that strengthens through sanctification.