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.
Yes, between humans, one billion dollars is a no-brainer. But in God's offer, it is based on FAITH! When if I offered you one billion dollars conditionally? Then, you'd have to trust me. Then, the analogy becomes more like the decision we make with God. It is NOT a no-brainer, because the reward is not clearly given here. It is based on faith and trusting that God will reward us for our response - which often calls for us to refute the present "good" things in life.
God transforms the minds of His elect to want to go to heaven. Isn't Paul the perfect example?
Yes, but He does it without destroying a man's free will. He doesn't erase our will, He inclines it towards Him. Saul already had zeal for God, it was just misdirected in defending the Old, rather than the New Covenant. Saul certainly did not have to be converted from wickedness. He tells us that HE HIMSELF was "perfect in the Law".
Regarding Satan - he is still using the Scriptures against Jesus. One can take Scriptures and twist it, whether we twist the words or the meaning - it's the same thing...I fail to see your distinction.
I wrote :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 responded : 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.
Hardly. Slow down a second. Is God righteous or not? IF He is, then HE binds Himself to promises made. IF He is righteous, He does not break promises. Thus, where is this "man-created" duty? GOD gave us His promise! Our hope is based on this assumption. Just because Jesus rose from the dead doesn't mean YOU will - UNLESS we rely on God's righteousness and promises. What is so difficult about this?
I'm sure it doesn't match your sense of justice. God owes you an apology.
Sorry if I call good - good and evil - evil. From what you are saying, you call evil - good, good - evil, justice - injustice; mercy - harshness. Etc. When we define God's attributes, we use words to define the meaning of "justice". There is an implied meaning to those letters put together to spell "justice"...There is a concept. And expecting someone to do something he cannot is NOT part of that concept! That is injustice in ANYONE'S definition. To you, then, God should be called "unjust", using human definition.
When we say that "God's ways are not our ways", it doesn't mean that God defines justice differently! It means His EXTENT of justice is different. He GOES BEYOND our definition - NOT FALL SHORT! He gives mercy to those who we do not believe deserve it. You think God is LESS than humanly just? That is exactly what you are saying. God does not even live up to human justice. Wow... Where do Protestants come up with this stuff?
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.
Oh boy. I live only a few miles from the Mexican border. We see them alright. Don't go there. Regarding God, we DO have a "claim", because God made a promise. The Untied States didn't make a promise to illegals. Knowing that God is righteous, knowing that God has told us if we respond to him positively, He would reward us, then He does "owe" us in a secondary sense. Not strictly, but He binds Himself, being that God is righteous. Or are you again going to say that God does not even live up to human standards of righteousness?
First, God is not just, now God is not righteous? What do they teach you at that Sunday school?
I wrote But this is meaningless in the practical world to you, since you believe that God must do EVERYTHING.
You responded 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.
LOL! Read that last sentence again. Are you some sort of disembodied person, separated from your body? Perhaps your paradigm is incorrect? Are you living in the Matrix? Again, do you think God is "tricking" us?
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.
Men of the Church wrote it inspired by God. Of course it is God's Word. That is our faith. I believe it based on the word of the Church. The Church verifies its source because it witnessed the Christ. Unless you think they made the whole thing up. You, on the other hand, believe the Bible is God's word because...God's word is the bible because...the Bible is God's word...and the vicious circle continues...
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."
LOL! I never thought of it that way. That's a fair analysis, I guess, except you could drop the "Roman" from your statement... God DID form the Church FIRST. God DID task this Church to spread the Word - whether by oral word or written letter or by deed.
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.
Yes. That's the way God planned it. Only they have the power to bind and loosen, not every individual. Otherwise, how is the faith supposed to remain ONE?
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.
That is not the smartest thing you have written over the course of our discussions(that is the nicest way I can say it). So I guess man determines the revelation of God, now? Is Christianity a revealed religion, or a philosophical argument? You are basically giving credence to Relativism - every good opinion is as good as another. Every nut case with a bible can decide for himself the revelation of God? Next, you'll be crowning the god of human reason... This is exactly the problem the Church has been fighting since the "Enlightenment" when such men as Kant came along and placed human reason above even God. Utterly ridiculous.
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. :)
Utterly corrupt? Please. The lengths Protestants go to villify the Church so as to assuage their guilty conscience on leaving or remaining outside the Church established by Christ. "well, it's corrupt, God, you know, that time when a priest stole some money, well, the whole Church MUST be false...". At what point in the Old Testament did God create a new "people"? Did He do away with them, despite their "corruptness"? No, God's people, the Church, will always continue to be His people, no matter its outer form.
Since I do not see persuasive evidence that it is allegory, for now I will take Genesis at face value.
Explain the different creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2. They are not in the same order. Or did God create the universe twice in two different ways?
Regards