Replies

I wouldn't be dumb enough to reject your gift. It would be, effectively, no decision at all.

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

[On whether God's offer of accepting Christ is a true balance-scale decision for all men, or is it a no-brainer for the elect. The original example was a free offer of one billion dollars. FK said he would accept it as a no-brainer. JK agreed that he would :)] ... 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.

I'll take your analogy. You're right, if I accepted this conditional offer, then I would have to trust you, since I have to perform first, and then hope you keep up your end. I have to believe both in your ability to pay and in your willingness to pay.

Transferring this over to the spiritual realm, how do the elect come to a decision about whether God is able or willing to let us into heaven? I would say that God graces His elect such that the decision becomes a no-brainer yet again. If a person does not believe that God is able or willing, then the person clearly does not know God or does not have enough information to make a judgment. The ultimate decision: believe = eternal life vs. don't believe = eternal damnation, is still a no-brainer to anyone with the facts. These facts can only come from God through grace.

In addition, if we are framing this as a conditional promise, with the human having to perform first in order to receive the reward, how is this not earning our salvation? The new element to this old argument is that people have to perform FIRST before God gives us anything, i.e., the keys to a mansion.

Saul certainly did not have to be converted from wickedness. He tells us that HE HIMSELF was "perfect in the Law".

Was Saul "perfect in the law" when he did this? :

Acts 7:59-8:3 : 59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep. [8] 1 And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

Were the Jews "perfect in the law" when they demanded the death of Christ?

[On whether satan twisted scripture or misquoted it:] 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.

To me, it is an extremely important distinction. You and I can have friendly disagreements about the interpretations of scripture, and, I would guess, maybe 90% of the time we would both agree with the text of the scripture, even if we are using different Bibles. Even if the words are arranged a little differently, we would still agree on the basic text. We would just disagree as to meaning.

However, if one of us used a "Bible" that was misquoted throughout as in the examples I gave of satan misquoting, then we would never even get to a debate, there would be no point of reference. If one of us believed in such a book, then that one could not possibly even be a Christian under any circumstances. In American law, intentional misquoting (lying, fraud) is much worse than misinterpretation (mistake, human error).

I went into detail about it in my last post because you challenged the correctness of my assertion. :) I wanted to make the point that what satan does to scripture is much much worse and much more dangerous than simply disagreeing with an interpretation. satan changes the point of reference so that no one can reach the truth. That is, without God doing something about it.

JK: "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."

FK: "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."

JK: "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!"

God is righteous. God binds Himself to promises made. God does not break His promises. So far, so good. But WHAT IS THE PROMISE HERE? The man-created duty I am talking about is your invention of a promise. God never says "I promise to save all men". He makes a non-decreed wish, not a promise. You are extracting a promise from a wish. You can't do that with God, right? :) Also, think of God's foreknowledge. He already knows all will not be saved, yet He says He wishes all to be saved. Doesn't that relieve Him of the promise you have put on Him? He already knows, so why would He promise to make a vain effort?

[On FK's argument that man's justice and God's justice are completely different:] 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.

No, I would never apply a human standard to God's justice. His justice is perfect, man's is not. I've got witnesses. :) Consider:

Zep. 3:4-5 : 4 Her [Jerusalem] prophets are arrogant; they are treacherous men. Her priests profane the sanctuary and do violence to the law. 5 The LORD within her is righteous; he does no wrong. Morning by morning he dispenses his justice, and every new day he does not fail, yet the unrighteous know no shame.

The Lord dispenses His justice morning by morning and He never fails. The unrighteous know no shame, and so do not practice justice as God does. Now, what about the righteous? Well, they are with God, right? Therefore, they do not hold to a justice that is apart from God's, they accept God's. So, the righteous do not believe in man's sense of justice, they believe in God's. Therefore, if anything can be called "man's justice" then it is the imperfect justice of the unrighteous. The two are very different.

God does not expect anyone to do what he cannot. He does not expect that everyone will be saved, either. This is just.

With all due respect, I think it sure does mean that God defines justice differently. How could He not? Think of the different vantage points of authority. How would you compare the authority God has over man to the authority a jury and judge have over a defendant? There is no comparison, right? Therefore, a different sense of justice is perfectly appropriate. One is subject to only perfection, and the other to human failings. In our sense of justice we build in all sorts of things to compensate for these failings. God doesn't need any of that. The systems are different.

I have no idea where you get that I think that God is less than humanly just. But in a sense, I have to admit that's true. God falls short of mistake, sin and corruption. Man's justice is full of those things. So, you have a point. :)

You spoke of God extending our sense of justice but not falling short of it. How is your human sense of justice satisfied with the Great Flood? Did anyone get a trial? What law was given to the people that they should not break? By man's standards, didn't God really make a "rush to judgment" here? In fact, God is really guilty of genocide by man's standards, isn't He? This isn't God extending man's justice, this is breaking it wide open. God's justice is not man's justice.

I pinged everyone mainly to see if anyone wanted in on the God's justice vs. man's justice issue, as well as the other law-related issues. These really interest me. I'll cut this here and move to the other issues in the next post.

Or are you again going to say that God does not even live up to human standards of righteousness?

Yes, of course! :) However, I must admit that I'm not even sure what a human standard of righteousness is. With justice, it's easy to tell the difference. ... Wow, I never knew you were that close to the border. I think it's ridiculous what you have to go through today, and what I'll have to go through tomorrow. What in the universe has happened to the Republican party on this issue? It makes me want to scream! :) Tell your Senator-who-wants-to-be-President not to count on my vote. :)

FK: "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."

Even though you disagree with what I am saying, I still think I am making a valid point. For example, after a long walk back to my car from shopping at the grocery store, I notice that the cashier gave me a ten in change when she should have given me a five. What should I do? As I sit in my car thinking for a moment, it begins to rain. :)

PRACTICALLY, I consider whether I am in a rush, have they ripped me off before, and WWJD, etc. This is only human. If I am a good boy, then I trudge back into the store to correct the error, and that is the end of it. INTELLECTUALLY, I would realize that it was God who moved me, by Himself and without anything from me, to go do the right thing. But this would not normally occur to me at the time. It would only if I went outside of the practical into the intellectual. This is what I meant.

The Church verifies its [the Bible] 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...

I don't think the Church made up the Bible, I would never give it that much credit! :) I believe the Bible is God's word because God tells us so in His word. We simply disagree on the meaning of the scriptures I use to show this. But even aside from that, just from me personally, after I read the whole thing for the first time, I really could come to no other conclusion on any level. I could not, and cannot now, fathom any man or group of men possibly fabricating anything like it. Even if a fake of one of the books was possible, there is no way in my mind that man could possibly have come up with something so perfect throughout all 66 books and covering so much time, with so many different authors.

FK: "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).

Thank you for the kindness.

[continuing] 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?

No, man does not determine the revelation of God, unless he is in the Catholic hierarchy. Then those men determine it for you. You have said so. I believe that only God determines His revelation. One of the main ways He does that is through scripture. ... Christianity is a revealed faith, through scripture. ... I am not giving credence to relativism. In fact, if you even looked at my statement before you derided it, the one thing you can say about it is that it argues against relativism. "Salient" scripture is in both strength and numbers.

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.

AARRRRRGH! And the lengths I went to, to make sure you wouldn't take it this way. Que Lastima! :) If you follow our conversation, then you can see that everything before my semicolon and capitalized "OR" refers to the Catholic Church, and everything after refers to Protestants. In both cases, I give possibilities for error and correctness. You were LOOKING for the insult, but it was not there. :)

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?

The second account was not simply a retelling of the first. Genesis 1 was an overview of the whole of creation, from God's perspective. Genesis 2 focused only on the creation story as it regarded Adam and Eve, a very different focus. Genesis 1 was more of an account that went by strict chronological order. Genesis 2 was more focused on how all this related to Adam and Eve. Here is a fairly short article that I mostly like that tackles this: Genesis contradictions? .

The best part of it is the conclusion:

"The final word on this matter, however, should really be given to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 and 5, the Lord is addressing the subject of marriage, and says: ‘Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?’

Notice how in the very same statement, Jesus refers to both Genesis 1 (verse 27b: ‘male and female created he them’) and Genesis 2 (verse 24: ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh’). Obviously, by combining both in this way, He in no way regarded them as separate, contradictory accounts."

If Jesus is OK with it, then so am I. :)