Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
“Me, I’d trust Him with my kids.”
I do every day along with my grandchildren. but the question still remains “If not God, then who..?” If not God, then how can you trust Him when He does not control their destiny?
Why would you trust a baby-killer with your babies?
If your answer requires that God kills babies in order to fit your theology, perhaps your theology has something foundationally wrong.
Does any one really believe that babies are beyond the control of God? Are they somehow exempt until the age of accountability from being part of God’s plan? When they die does God say “oops, lost another one, gee I wish I could have saved them?” Now that’s defective theology with a God impotent and uncaring.
I would rather entrust my offspring to a God who is holy and righteous and has planned everything accordingly. Then if something happens to my child or grandchild, whether I like it or not, I can trust it was for their good for God was overseeing it.
And if she dies, what would you tell her mother? God killed her?
Or: “It was for their own good?”
Why the innocent suffer and die is a question man has asked for millennia. In addition to scripture, the books exploring the question could fill a library.
The answers: “God killed them.” and “It’s for their own good.” are as likely to make more atheists as Christians.
It’s certainly not what I would call “spreading the Good News.”
“And if she dies, what would you tell her mother? God killed her”
Probably not in those terms but when my first son died during the second trimester my wife’s report was “the Lord took him, blessed be the name of the Lord”. See, unbelievers can’t say that since their only consolation is here and now.
Paul sums it up pretty well: 1Cr 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
I am sorry for your loss. And for the insensitivity of my question.
“I am sorry for your loss. And for the insensitivity of my question.”
Thank you, but don’t apologize, it was a good question, one that we all should bear in mind and be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have.
Thanks, I appreciate your consideration.
The discussion has become to personal for me to continue in this vein.
I can note that the closer it comes to our personal experience, the more it changes.
Towards the Gospel and for the good.
thanks for your posts..
So, all we have to do is figure out if Paul believed in a sure and certain salvation, or in one that could be won and lost throughout life:
Eph 1:11-14 : 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession — to the praise of his glory.
Rom 8:28-30 : 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. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
2 Tim 1:12 : That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.
2 Tim 4:7-8 : 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day — and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
There are more of course, but I think we should be pretty clear now that Paul was assured of his salvation, and did not believe he could lose it in life. In fact, Paul is a prime source for assurance in the Bible.
And what does it take for a mannequin to become your child?
To follow the loose analogy, it would have to be "born again", from a woman.
Did He not come to save the world, FK? next thing you will tell me that means only the "elect."
You read my mind. :) It's either that, or Christ is a failure and did not complete the mission the Father gave Him. It would necessarily mean that Christ FAILED to do the will of the Father. Does that sound likely? :)
The rest of the human refuse doesn't count, right? I can see how racism and slavery were "justified" in the west through the Bible, if one asserts that not all human beings are His children, but only fit for disposal.
Irrelevant. The Bible never says it is our call to make as to who is of the elect, therefore no Biblical argument about the slavery you are talking about can be made.
I don't know the answer to this, so I'll pose it as a question. We are told of the Ethiopian eunuch who was saved, and thus of the elect. Is it safe to assume that he was black?
If we have His life, and we do, then we are His children.
This supports my point. You and I have His life, but the lost do not:
John 6:63 : The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
Do all people "have" the words that Jesus has spoken? No, of course not. Only the saved do. To have them is to have ears to hear and eyes to see. Only the saved are His children.
FK, John 1:11 (one verse earlier) says: "He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him." Now, what would "which was his own, but his own did not receive him" possibly mean other than all the people were His children but not all His children accept Him.
In that case go back one MORE verse, and let's put all three together:
John 1:10-12 : 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
Your own explanation PROVES that it cannot be true. If 11 means that all people are His children, THEN no human has ever received Christ, according to your reading of 11. Do you see how your reading has 11 and 12 directly contradicting each other? How can ALL not receive, YET, some receive? That is what you are arguing. The answer is that 10 explains 11. The context of the conversation concerns that Christ created the whole world, therefore all things are His, including His human creations. It doesn't speak to His children, it speaks to His ownership. He owns all people, and His children are separated out of that group in verse 12.
What are you talking about? As a Catholic, do you believe in original sin or not? :)
do you believe in original sin or not?
Kosta and I bat that one back and forth a bit as you'll see - I predict sometime Wednesday..
:)
And is there a "metaphor button" that signlas when we are to read something allegorically and when literally? Or is that up to the reader and whatever "voices" he may hear?
The word in question also means kill (literally).
I'm not sure what you are implying that changed at Pentecost in this regard, but I do agree with you. My position is that the Holy Spirit can affect us whether He is currently indwelling or not.
When presented with "its raining cats and dogs" the one that runs to the window to observe pets falling, is a literalist.. as the one that quoted the metaphor thionks to himself, "Duuuuugh"..
If I'm following you, then I would say that indwelling is a very big deal for us. We see Him as the permanent seal of our salvation, and even further, as a "brand" upon our heart. We are "marked" forever, so that anyone checking can see that we belong to the stable of Christ. :)
As for when the Spirit moves in, there would have to be a welcome, under our view, because true belief immediately preceded it. The believer just got through asking Christ to come into his life to be Lord and Savior, so when the Spirit immediately indwells, it is always a welcome act.
Don't fall for that! Without making light of anyone's loss, the words "the Lord took him" are not the same as "God killed him."
They would have you believe that God created death as well as life. That is a lie Satan wants everyone to believe. God did everything to free us from death. The Holy Spirit is called the Giver of Life, the Comforter. Is that the same "spirit of God" who kills Egyptian firstborn?
The Christ known to the Church is the Christ of the Sermon on the Mount. Not the angry God of the OT or God who creates mankind destined for eternal suffering.
Remember: if it's not comforting it's not from God; it i's not life it's not from God; if you can't find love in it; it's not from God. Killing innocent children is not from God. Death is not from God. Hate is not from God. Loving oneself is not from God.
Do not fall for the satanic deception that makes God the source of good and of evil. Those who have been deceived will tell you that He is.
The only thing your quotes prove is that Apostle Paul said different things to different audiences. There is no doubt that he said you can be severed from Christ and fall from grace, as well as that you can be secure and never fall from grace.
[saying that Christ came to save the world and not just the 'elect'] It would necessarily mean that Christ FAILED to do the will of the Father
I guess that's the part of the Bible the Protestants have rejected, even through it clearly says Christ came to save the world, sinners (all of us, because all are sinners, even the "saved").
Irrelevant. The Bible never says it is our call to make as to who is of the elect
There are many on your side of the divide who claim they very much know who is elect. Dr. E. knows her children are because "God gave them to" her. In other words, God doesn't give reprobate children to elect parents! You are the only one so far who claims not to know who is elect and who is not. I guess that's because you are a newbie Calvinist.
therefore no Biblical argument about the slavery you are talking about can be made
Your history is flawed, dear FK. The west justified slavery precisely through the Bible. various racist doctrines were formed in the west based on the Bible. the whole concept of predestined "elect" and predestined refuse is contrary to the idea of all humans deserving the same dignity, but rather divides people into the select and the rejected, even saying of the reject that God is not their Father (He is not, but by their decision, not His, and yes, when it comes to evil, man thwarts God's will, FK!).
Your own explanation PROVES that it cannot be true
FK verse 10 says the world did not recognize Him. Who were those who later recognized Him? Verse 11 says those who were His own did not receive Him? Who then received Him? All the people of the world are referred to as "His own." But we are not His simply because He created us. We can only be His is we come to Him after he calls us, and if we stay with Him. It is not that God is not the Father of the world, but that the world doesn't in its entirety recognize Him as their Father, rejects Him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.