Our biggest temptation as humans is works righteousness – thinking that we can earn our salvation by own goodness. Ask the average nominal Christian in America how he knows he is saved and you’re likely to hear, “Well, I’m a pretty good person.” Even those who recognize that they are saved by grace alone often feel the temptation to believe they are “kept,” at least in part, by their good works. While we are certainly saved for good works (Eph 2:8-10; Tit 2:11-12), good works cannot save us or keep us saved. Our trust in Jesus alone saves us. Faith causes salvation – good works are the effect.
We could never do enough good works to be accepted by God because, in God’s economy, good works cannot cancel out evil works. And it’s our evil works that are the problem. They are an affront to God’s holiness. If we are to have a relationship with a holy God, our evil works have to be dealt with. The problem is that mankind has no ability to atone for his evil works. Only God can do that. And He did. He became a man and paid the penalty for our sin (death) on the cross. The sinless man died in the place of sinful man. The way we access the atonement God provided for us is by trusting in Jesus and what He did for us on the cross. Since God’s acceptance of us is based entirely on Jesus’ work rather than our own, God’s continued acceptance of us is also based on Jesus’ work rather than our own (Rom 5:8-11).
If righteousness was credited to us on the basis of our trust rather than our works (Rom 3:9-28; 4:1-8; 5:1-2; Gal 2:16; 3:21-22; 5:4), then that righteousness cannot be taken from us on the basis of our works. It can only be taken from us if we stop doing the thing that credited Christ’s righteousness to us in the first place, namely trusting in Jesus. Christ’s righteousness can only be lost by unbelief, not evil works. We tend to think that when we sin, we lose our righteousness with God, but we do not have any righteousness of our own to lose. The only righteousness we have is the righteousness God credited to our account when we placed our trust in Jesus. We can’t lose Christ’s righteousness when we sin because it is not ours to lose. It is His righteousness. He credited it to us on the basis of our faith, and thus it can only be withdrawn by Christ on the basis of our unbelief – not on the basis of our sin. His righteousness is not canceled by unrighteous behavior, but by unrighteous unbelief.
That’s not to say God is unconcerned when we sin or that good works don’t matter. He is concerned, and good works do matter. The reason God saved us is so that we could live a life of good works. But we have to understand that we do good works – not to get saved or stay saved – but to please the one who saves us by His mercy alone.
Someone can be lost, but it won’t be caused by their sin. It will be caused by their lack of trust in God. Hebrews 3:12-13 is particularly clear on this matter: “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today,’ that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” It is an unbelieving heart that causes us to apostatize, but that unbelieving heart became unbelieving and hardened by sinning. Consistently choosing evil has an effect on our faith. The problem with intentional sin is not that God won’t forgive us, but rather than eventually we will stop seeking forgiveness because sin erodes our faith (and according to Matthew 24:12, it erodes our love as well, and love is tied to obedience – John 14:15,23).
Faith is not easy. Salvation by faith alone is so hard to believe. The human tendency is always toward works righteousness. Every non-Christian religion is based on personal merit. Not so for Christianity. We have to believe that God has forgiven us, despite the fact that we’ve done nothing to deserve it, and everything to forfeit it. It’s easy to believe we are saved when we feel we have earned it, but it’s hard to believe we are saved when we know we haven’t. No one could or has earned it. That is why Jesus is necessary, and that is why we must continue to put our trust in Him.
February 11, 2021 at 2:07 pm
PTL ………. excellent post on the true gospel —– the gospel of grace. sadly, many would refer you to James and incorrectly try and refute you —– but James doesn’t. James just warns against those thinking they are saved when their faith is a false/dead faith.
LikeLike
February 12, 2021 at 2:47 pm
Paul, I’d appreciate your thoughts on how one might assess his own faith. If someone thinks they’re saved based on their faith in Jesus, how could that person actually be lost? Where is faith’s tipping point between lost and saved?
LikeLike
February 12, 2021 at 2:58 pm
“We have to believe that God has forgiven us, despite the fact that we’ve done nothing to deserve it, and everything to forfeit it.”
This is the part of theology that I just don’t understand. If God is all knowing and all powerful, as the Bible says, then we have to acknowledge that he could have created any of an infinite variety of universes he could imagine with his infinite mind. And he had to have known before he even created this universe that if he chose to create this specific universe that sin would result, right? All that HAS to be true by definition if God is all knowing and all powerful.
Thus it has to mean this is the universe God WANTED to exist. Sin can’t be an unfortunate consequence of free will (even if we ignore all the biblical evidence that God determines everything and thus free will is only an illusion), because God could have chosen to create one of the infinite universes where Lucifer didn’t rebel and Adam and Eve didn’t disobey…universes that MUST be possible to exist if choice actually exists.
So the only rational conclusion I see is that God WANTED sin to exist, he WANTED humanity to fall, he WANTED the world to become wicked, he WANTED to drown the world in a flood, and he WANTS billions of people to end up burning in hell. It means he is the one entirely responsible for the existence of sin in our universe, and the cause of every atrocity. Right?
And yet God blames humanity for becoming sinners and requires us to accept his forgiveness in order to be saved…even though HE chose to create the world where things turn out they way they do. We only do (only CAN do) what he created us to do. So I don’t see the justification there for saying we don’t deserve forgiveness…or that there’s even anything to forgive.
See what I mean?
LikeLike
February 13, 2021 at 6:09 am
Jason I agree with your post in general but have a comment on a couple of points that I want to expound upon.
Why do good works. ?
You mentioned in your post that we do good works to please God. That’s true, but I think it’s way deeper than that. When a person is saved or “born again”, something happens at the core of our being that really changes us. The bible eludes to this as God giving us a “new heart”. I’m sure there are many ways to explain this but something metaphysical happens at salvation that can’t be minimized or taken lightly. The bible says we are created “for” good works. In other words this is what we are built for. More than that it is “WHO” we are after salvation. To me this is more of a question of identity and doing good works lines up perfectly with our new identity. So we should not look at works as a sort of measuring stick or pressure to perform kind of thing, rather we should look at good works as being who we truly are, When you take that approach you can exhale, relax, and really start enjoying the righteousness that God has given you.
To follow my point above, you mentioned that we can “fall away from God” by unbelief. In my humble opinion I don’t believe a true Christian can ever for any reason lose his salvation or stop believing in God. I know this is a controversial statement that will raise a lot of objections from many.
I will start with the verse you pointed out in Hebrews. Hebrews is written to Israelites or Jews and attempts to make a case for Jesus as a better high priest and as One better than Moses. The writer is trying to convince his readers to believe in Jesus and enter into His rest. Now we don’t know the story of every person that is reading this letter. I am sure there are many that were starting to believe but were not fully convinced of Jesus as Messiah. We certainly cannot assume that all these people were saved. Certainly the writer has an evangelistic heart when writing these things as we also see in the other apostolic letters. We see in Hebrews the tendency of some Jews to “fall back” into the temple worship and law observance. This is not “backsliding” as we have been taught, but these are people that started to come to faith but turned back to the Law. These people are not born again. Salvation is not a matter of saying a magical “sinners prayer”. Something huge happens within a person at salvation and I can’t quantify that or measure that. So when the writer warns of falling way by unbelief, this is directly addressing those Jews who are learning about Jesus but have not yet been born again. If I am a Christian reading this, it doesn’t apply to me because I don’t have an evil heart, God gave me a new heart, and secondly I believe in Christ as the Messiah wholeheartedly. So this is a case of “if the shoe fits wear it”. We should not read other people’s mail or think every verse applies to us.
Further to my point about a Christian falling away, consider these :
1) If a Christian can fall away into unbelief and lose his salvation then we are our own Savior, That means it’s up to me to maintain my salvation until the end after God has given it to me. However, the scriptures says that God will carry us and keep us onto completion.
2) How can we become “unborn” ? The born again phrase is used a lot, sometimes over used, but it really paints a good picture as to what happens when a person is saved. The thought of being lost after salvation is incongruent to me. How can a person become unborn ? There is a reason Jesus uses this phrase.
3) The scripture says we are “sealed” by the Holy Spirit at salvation. This is strong language and I don’t believe this seal can be broken. In many places in scriptures we are assured of eternal life and that nothing can separate us from the love of God. I don’t see how this seal can be broken unless we think we are more powerful than God. To those in the anti-free will camp, this is not a proof that we do not have free will. Our will is the same as God’s when we are saved and in union with Him. It can’t be broken.
I know there will be many objections and many examples of people “falling away” into a life of sin etc…. I am sure that true Christians who engage in a sinful lifestyle will not be content and will be miserable to the core. This is not who they are despite their attempt to deny that. On the other hand, I am sure that there are those that “fall away” in the same sense as those in Hebrews who were never really born again. They were never changed in the first place. I don’t know how this works at the metaphysical level but it is what it is.
To many the gospel is only about forgiveness. It’s much more than that, God has this thing rigged and He’s not stupid. Do you think God would pour out His Spirit on people and save them only to give them a license to sin ? Surely not, as Paul said in Romans, should we continue in sin because grace abounds ? How can we continue in sin if we have died to it ? (paraphrase). When a person is saved God changes their desires at the core. This is in addition to the once and for all forgiveness we have. Yes we may have tendencies to sin but they will never fulfill us. Over time as our mind is renewed we learn what is right for us and we realize we were made for good works because Salvation works !
Naz
LikeLike
February 13, 2021 at 11:32 am
John M, are you the same “John M” roman catholic from the Pastor Mike Winger youtube videos ? I realize that could be just a fluke, as there are lots of John’s with M as an initial, but i just have to ask.
how can they be lost ? because their faith is a false/dead faith ……. the type of faith James warns us about.
where’s the tipping point ? if you said Yes to Jesus and Jesus said yes to you you are saved …….. you can not lose your salvation only benefits in this world and rewards in the next.
LikeLike
February 13, 2021 at 12:34 pm
I have no connection with what you’re referring to, Paul. I’m a lifelong Oneness Pentecostal who’s battling with the whole faith/works question.
I’ve appreciated Jason’s recent posts, which have been timely for me. When you mentioned “those thinking they are saved when their faith is a false/dead faith,” it got me to wondering how someone believing they were saved through faith in Christ could meanwhile not actually be saved. What are the circumstances in which someone could be deceived in this way? I’m not looking to debate, just eager for different perspectives.
LikeLike
February 14, 2021 at 12:00 pm
John M……… thx, that’s what I figured ….. but as I stated, I had to confirm it wasn’t the John M I already talked to several times at Pastor Mike’s channel.
fair enough ……. debates are usually pointless anyway.
there’s lots of good apologetics but I’ll try and answer your question briefly.
I’ll just add —– I wouldn’t use the word “deceived,” that’s a little over the top for me in this situation. there are a couple of groups imo …… the first just misunderstands the apostle Paul and incorrectly believes all they have to do is state they believe in Jesus and they are saved even though there’s no change in their lives. the other group is even further from the truth and possibly doesn’t even believe in Jesus/also misunderstand the apostle Paul and they just profess faith in Him to gain in some way ….. to please parents/spouse, fit in with their group, covering all of your bases, ……..
LikeLike
February 15, 2021 at 8:38 am
John M. I sympathize with you. I was in the Oneness Pentecostal church for over 10 years and battled the same thing. No coincidence there. You are on the firing line my friend and you better perform if you want to continue to belong to that church group. My experience with belonging to that church was that after the honeymoon of salvation was over, my spiritual life got worse and burdened me with rules, regulations and condemnation until I finally left. I was in a toxic environment and could not continue there. I am not saying those people are not Christians, of course they are, I don’t doubt that for a second, but we can be led astray by false teachings.
I hope God leads you to find peace in Him. You are not the problem John.
Blessings.
Naz
LikeLike
February 15, 2021 at 3:04 pm
John M, I’ll just add …….. the error on the other hand —- would be saying it’s faith+works=salvation. what people like myself profess is a true/saving faith=salvation with a by-product of good works.
as per my other posts I only talked about the other hand where people had faith by that faith was a false/dead faith that was in vain and does not lead to salvation.
the difference is ………. we are only/can only be saved because of what Jesus did or as the other sola states …… Christ Alone.
LikeLike
February 16, 2021 at 1:11 pm
Jason writes:
I think this should be amended to say that “good works alone cannot save us or keep us saved.” Moreover, your continuation that trust in Jesus “alone” saves us is directly discordant with New Testament teaching:
John 6 (ESV)
28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
Here, Christ specifically defines belief as a work, and this is of course obvious since believing is an act of the will. In other words, one is doing something in order to obtain something else. Unless you’re a Calvinist of some sort and believe that faith is imposed upon you irresistibly, human agents can exercise or withhold belief which is why it is a work.
So, when the Bible tells us that we are not saved by “works,” we either have a blatantly inconsistent record or it is a specific kind of work that we are not saved by. And since most if not all of the professing Christians on this site believe in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, the latter option is the only reasonable interpretation.
Mark 16
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Again, Christ clearly announces belief and baptism as necessary components of salvation. He did not say, “Whoever believes is saved and will be baptized.” And NO, this isn’t a spurious addition to the book of Mark.
Romans 10
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Here, the Scriptures also affirm that salvation (“saved”) constitutes belief and verbal confession. One without the other, scripturally speaking, is not salvation, however much it messes up one’s preferred theology. If a person wants to be saved, he must believe in his heart and verbally confess Christ at Lord. This is reinforced just a few verses later:
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
And given the proximate context from vss. 9 and 10, this isn’t some metaphoric calling. Calling on the name of the Lord is a verbal exercise. In other words, true biblical faith entails action:
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?
And this informs us that true belief entails obedience to the gospel.
Acts 5
32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
A person cannot receive the Holy Spirit without obedience!
Hebrews 5
9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
1 Corinthians 15
1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
The salvation of the Corinthians was dependent on their holding fast to what was preached to them. Otherwise, their faith would be in vain. And that is precisely what James tells us when he repeatedly states that faith without works is dead.
Jason continues:
There is some equivocation in your use of the word “works.” In the previous paragraph (not quoted), you refer to our “evil works” which had to be addressed by the cross. It wasn’t our good works which separated us from God; it was rather our evil works which signified our state of darkness and death. And since evil was purged by Christ, then quite obviously our (evil) works couldn’t save us. But as the scriptural record proves beyond ambiguity, the works by which we are saved are not “our” works. If it’s anybody’s works, they’re God’s in that He provided us the means of escape from death.
You allege that our sin cannot be the basis of our being lost, but that again is in direct contradiction to the scriptural record:
Colossians 3
5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming (upon the sons of disobedience).
Based on what you seem to imply, all Paul should have said is, “Just keep trusting in Christ as your personal savior because no matter what you do, you’ll forever be saved.” That is not at all the thrust of Paul’s exhortations here. He begins the chapter by saying that if a person is really risen with Christ, he’ll seek heavenly things and not the sins of the world because it is precisely for the committing of those sins that God’s wrath is coming.
1 Corinthians 6
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
The context here is the judgment of matters that pertain to the church. He is warning Corinth against the deception that people who live unrighteously will be saved.
He further elaborates:
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
Our physical bodies are members of Christ’s body, and the act of fornication, specifically an act with a prostitute, unites the body of Christ with sin. So, by sinning against our own body, we sin against Christ because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the sin of fornication profanes the temple of God. And what, specifically, will God do to a defiled temple?
1 Corinthians 3
16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?
17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.
As Thayer notes, the word for “destroy” (phtheiro), is to corrupt or to destroy. “In the opinion of the Jews, the temple was corrupted or ‘destroyed’ when anyone defiled or in the slightest degree damaged anything in it, or if its guardians neglected their duties.” Thus, one act of fornication constitutes the defilement of God’s temple.
The messengers of the churches in Asia who were addressed in Revelation 2 & 3 were not merely admonished to keep trusting in God. They were rather rebuked for various sins and were warned that if they did not repent, their punishment would include having their candlestick removed and having their name blotted out of the Book of Life.
You affirm that a person can be lost, but not because of their sin. However, as the record above is clear (and can be added to by many, many more Scriptures), unrepentant sin incurs God’s wrath and forfeits one’s place in the kingdom of heaven. The bottom line is this, Jason: The conscious, willful, commission of sin is indicative of something seriously askew in a person’s life. Can it happen? Of course. But what do we do if it does happen?
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.
We don’t sin and say, “Oh, well, I’m still saved no matter what.” The condition for forgiveness and cleansing is confession and repentance. We are fallible and can irrationally allow circumstances to overwhelm us. And we’re thankful for access to an altar by the blood of Christ, whereby we can even enter the holy of holies. But as the New Testament repeatedly admonishes us, the idea that sin will not separate you from God is delusion and can never be affirmed by people committed to holiness (Heb. 12:14).
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 17, 2021 at 7:24 am
“The bottom line is this, Jason: The conscious, willful, commission of sin is indicative of something seriously askew in a person’s life. Can it happen? Of course. But what do we do if it does happen?”
So we have reduced the blood of the new covenant to something less than the blood of bulls and goats. In the OT the peoples sins were forgiven on the day of atonement. That’s a whole years worth of sins forgiven in one day. But now, under the new covenant, apparently it’s gotten worse. We need to ask for forgiveness pretty much every day or any time we sin. The question is, does God forgive us every time we ask ? According to 1 John, He will. So it seems to me we are asking for something we already have over and over again. That’s because we don’t understand the new covenant.
Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
Heb 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
Heb 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,”
Heb 10:17 then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
Heb 10:18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,
Please note verse 14 … BY A SINGLE OFFERING HE HAS PERFECTED FOR ALL TIME THOSE WHO ARE BEING SANCTIFIED. That means our forgiveness is final and complete for the totality of all our sins for all time. We are “perfected” for “all time” !
More than that it says in verse 19 we therefore have CONFIDENCE. Have you ever had confidence talking with and approaching God ? Or do you cower and bow your head in shame for all the sinful deeds you committed and confess them before making your requests be known to God ?
How can we have confidence, if we need to keep short accounts of our sins with God ? There is obviously a balance here of feeling remorse for a wrong doing and feeling condemned about it. Its healthy to feel remorse for a wrong doing but that should never shake our confidence in approaching our Father and we should never ever feel condemned or forsaken.
1John 1 is written to people “who say they have no sin”. These are sin deniers. I’m sure you have met people in the world that don’t even thing sin exists and they have nothing to be forgiven of. John was addressing these agnostics and told them that if they confessed their sin that God would forgive ALL their unrighteousness. This is not a plea to Christians to ask God for daily forgiveness. Christians are not sin deniers, we know what God has done for us and the sin that He has forgiven us of. As for these people, John explains to them what they need to do in order for them to have fellowship with them (verse 3), confess their sinfulness to God. This is an evangelistic outreach to the sin deniers that walk in darkness. We cannot assume every person reading this letter is a Christian and certainly John and the apostles have an evangelistic heart in their writings.
1Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jn 1:4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.
Walking in the Light
1Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Jn 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
The bottom line is this Jason,
NOTHING can separate us from the love of God, not even sin. Our commitment, promises, zeal and apologies to God do not save us or keep us saved. We are in blood covenant with Jesus and it cannot be broken.
Naz
LikeLike
February 17, 2021 at 8:31 am
@Naz, your post is a prime example of deliberately talking past an argument. Do you really think that quoting other verses actually negates the ones I cited? Your reference to Heb. 10:11-20 bears no relevance to the discussion because you’ve spun verse 14 in accordance with your theology and discordant with the context. Animal sacrifices, pursuant to Paul’s entire argument over several chapters, could never take away the smallest sin. At best, they were covered or deferred but never removed. Yesterday’s lie or last year’s fornication were permanently on the record, and there was nothing anybody could do about it. Only Christ’s sacrifice has the efficacy to actually remove sins, and once His blood is applied, they are removed permanently. Verse 14 has nothing to do with the conscious, deliberate sins a person commits in the future, excepting that we could have them removed if we repent. Moreover:
Hebrews 10
19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.
24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,
25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
I provide an extended quotation to show that, contextually, Paul is speaking to Christians, not sinners. In fact, there’s no way you can twist this passage to direct it to anybody but Christians. “We” have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus by the way He opened for “us.” We may approach Him with clean consciences because He washed us with “pure water.” He speaks of “our hope” and encourages them to keep meeting together and then says that the punishment for deliberate sin is worse than they who set aside Moses’ law. Your manipulation of verse 14 is textbook eisegesis. You “see” eternal security because you force it into the text. No honest reading of Hebrews 10 will yield that result.
Although it is good that you provided an extended quotation of 1 John 1, you quote it as if it speaks for itself when it rather counts against the very thing you’re saying. John isn’t waxing “evangelistic” by addressing sinners because the entire epistle clearly demonstrates that he is speaking to Christians. And it’s a little tedious to have to repeat this because we’ve gone over this previously.
First, John includes himself when he says, “if WE confess our sins,” etc. Second, he continues to address them as Christians and not as sinners:
1 John 2
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
He doesn’t tell them to pray the sinners prayer to be born again. He speaking to them as fellow believers and places them in a different category from “the whole world.”
7 Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard.
This isn’t something they’re hearing for the first time. He reminds them of what they heard previously.
12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake.
Note, he did not say that their sins will be forgiven. Clearly, their sins were already forgiven (thus, demonstrating beyond doubt that his audience is Christian).
12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake.
13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father.
14 I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
The “you” never changes throughout the book. Your sins are forgiven, you know him who is from the beginning, you have overcome the evil one, you know the Father, and the word of God abides in you. You don’t say that to visitors on a Sunday morning service, Naz.
21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
These are people who already know the truth.
1 John 3
1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
2 Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears[a] we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.
3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.
So, the world doesn’t know “us,” (John includes his audience) because it (the world) doesn’t know Him. “We are God’s children now” and “we shall be like him” at His appearing.
And the same is true for the rest of the book which is not necessary at this point to analyze. Sorry, Naz, but there’s not a snowball’s chance in Riyadh that John is speaking to sinners, and any casual reading of 1 John would have immediately dispelled you of such a foolish notion.
Again, the bottom line: forgiveness and cleansing is conditioned upon confession and repentance (as I’ve shown both here and in the previous post).
LikeLike
February 17, 2021 at 12:08 pm
Too much to respond to, so just let me say this: Everyone can point to verses that make it sound like faith alone saves, and everyone can point to verses that make it sounds like good works save (or conversely, that evil works damn the believer). The question is how we make sense of both sets of data. I think the best way of reconciling them is to affirm that salvation is received by faith alone, but that this faith will necessarily result in good works. Evil works can result in the loss of salvation, but not in and of themselves. Evil works lead to the loss of salvation because evil works erode our faith, and the loss of faith results in the loss of salvation (Heb 3:12-13).
LikeLike
February 17, 2021 at 12:18 pm
@Jason’s #13 Post,
But Jason, you’re overlooking the fact that faith itself is defined by our Lord as a work. The most basic and fundamental definition of work in a theological context is doing something in order to obtain something else. And as I stated, since the exercise of faith is an act of the will, then we are most certainly doing something in order to obtain salvation. It is thus a kind of work that is incapable of producing justification, not works per se. And you are further overlooking the fact that belief itself is defined as obedience to the gospel (death, burial, resurrection, repentance, baptism, Spirit infilling). You cannot separate belief and obedience according to its biblical definition.
LikeLike
February 18, 2021 at 7:22 am
Jason, if evil works result in loss of salvation, how do you ever know if you’re saved ? We know that even the smallest sin is still a sin, and a sin is evil by definition so …. we are basically up a creek by your theology and we will never know or have confidence that we are saved. Do you really think God intended us to live with that uncertainty ?
Erode our faith ? There will be many days when your faith will be challenged. Do you think this is a time to question your salvation ? Surely, as I tried to explain before, there will be people that have not been born again that will start to come to faith in Jesus but will turn back to the temple. These people are not Christians, they are considering Christ as Messiah but are not ready to give up their religion for Him like Paul did. This is what Hebrews is talking about, the context is critical here.
Sure you will say that we need to continually confess and ask for forgiveness over and over and over and over and over … you get my point. As the Brits would say, this is bloody exhausting ! And of course we must repent of our sins also which in the UPC theology is the complete and utter cessation of all sins, which is impossible by the way. I believe in repentance and when we come to faith in Jesus that’s part of what is going on. My lack of perfect performance is not a indication that I need to “repent” again. If I do something wrong, I will know because in my heart I don’t want to sin. Did you know you don’t really want to sin ? Why do you think that is ? I remember when I was an unbeliever, I had no problem coming up with all sorts of ideas and schemes and it never bothered me at all. I can’t do that any more.
Jason, I feel you are seeking a clear understanding of the gospel of grace and you will find that it will eventually conflict with many of the doctrines and teachings of the UPC that you have learned. This is not a slight to you in any way. I’ve been there. However, this takes time and will not happen over night, I pray the Lord will open up your understanding and give you a revelation of the gospel of grace. It is powerful but controversial and you will end up spending the rest of your days, like me, arguing for God’s desire to actually save people that will believe in Him. It seems like we spend a lot of time talking about how people lose their salvation or are not “real” Christians.
We can reconcile faith and works and I agree with you on the point that true faith will produce good works. However when you start using those works as a measuring stick that a person is saved you will quickly fall into trouble. God knows those that are His. Salvation is not only forgiveness, God changes people at the core and we are no longer the same. To understand the gospel we need to see and accept that truth apart from what we see on the outside. After all, we are all a work in progress as we grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Remember the person in Corinthians who slept with his father wife .. Paul still called him a brother and tried to reconcile him to the church. There is a lesson there somewhere. We need to stop writing people off as we have a tendency to do.
A word on the scriptures, unless we come to a better understanding and correct context, the scriptures will be a muddled mess of confusion. If verses seem to contradict then our understanding is lacking and it’s an opportunity to grow.
Naz
LikeLike
February 18, 2021 at 7:44 am
Naz writes:
Because there’s a huge difference between sins of ignorance and the willful disregard of God’s commandments. And the power of the Holy Ghost, pursuant to the promises of God’s word, enables us to live a victorious life over sin. If you’re doing something that displeases God, He will reveal it to you so that you can excise it from your life (if you love me, keep my commandments). We thus have full confidence in our salvation. It’s really not hard, Naz, unless you don’t have the Holy Ghost:
2 Corinthians 6
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Reception and relation are conditioned upon our coming out of the world. The plain teaching of Scriptures repeatedly encourages, commands and warns us to walk in God’s commandments:
2 Corinthians 7
1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
And with respect to Jason’s alleged uncertainty over the relationship between grace and works, your memory cells must be misfiring because he’s consistently held that position for as along as I’ve been coming here, and that’s the position of many Oneness theologians. It may be the case that he’s having second thoughts, but he’s not indicated that by anything he’s written thus far.
Actually, a word on the Scriptures: Quit trying to read your biases and private theologies into the Scriptures. Every time you try to do so, you’ve been shown that you are the one who’s clearly taking every questioned passage out of context. You are clearly and obviously attempting to warp the meaning of every verse to fit your opinion. I take it that you really don’t realize what you’re doing, but the more to tap dance when it’s shown to you, the less I’m inclined to ascribe it to ignorance.
LikeLike
February 19, 2021 at 4:58 am
Scalia, your tone and demeanor, as usual, is very harsh and abrasive. This is not the kind of speech that is fit for believers and it is shameful that you will not allow me to express myself but rather feel the need to comment about how I comment or making false presumptions. This is a very judgmental and critical attitude and again is not befitting for Christians.
Unfortunately, I know you cannot but help to converse in this manner because I know where you sit and the teachings you are under. I was there my friend and I was the spitting image of what you exude constantly on this site.
There is absolutely no way I can make you see the error of your tone or theological views because this can only come by revelation from God. I pray that one day you will understand the gospel of grace and stop persecuting those like me that actually believe God wants to save people.
Naz
LikeLike
February 19, 2021 at 7:45 am
@Naz, you write:
My demeanor is entirely dependent on my interlocutor. In this instance, that’s you. I’m very respectful to anybody who will honestly assess the data and argue in good faith. We’ve been down this road before. You repeat yourself over and over and when shown contextually why your statements are discordant with the text we’re discussing, you either disappear or repeat yourself. The Apostles had the same “demeanor” when engaging false doctrine, and eternal security is demonstrably false doctrine, root and branch. I can have all the patience in the world toward somebody who argues in good faith, but this finger-in-the-ears-I’m-right-no-matter-what-the-text-says approach is something no honest person can respect.
One doesn’t have to look far to see how I converse with different individuals. This site is filled with posts of mine that express disagreement without the hint of rancor. I do, however, confess that it gets my goat whenever a person deliberately ignores an argument and simply waits for his turn to talk (that’s you). I pay strict attention to what my interlocutors argue and do my dead-level-best to engage what they’re saying. When they, in turn, ignore the substance of my arguments and trudge on as if they were never made, that’s something no rational person can respect.
And if you can hide behind “revelation,” so can everybody else. You thus have no basis to critique any view that opposes your own. If “revelation” is an out for you, it’s an out for everybody else. That’s a stark admission that the Scriptures do not teach what you allege. It’s hidden from everybody except those who’ve been given a revelation. And if that’s the case, then you need to quit trying to cite the Bible as justification for what you believe. As has been shown here, the text doesn’t even come close to what you allege. And your disparaging remarks about Oneness Pentecostals notwithstanding, I’m very happy to be a part of Bible-believing Christianity. We don’t read between the lines; we read what’s on the lines.
LikeLike
February 19, 2021 at 7:51 am
And one more thing, Naz. I am not a moderator here, so I have no clue what you mean that I “will not allow [you] to express [yourself].” Excepting the plethora of off-topic posts you’ve uploaded on Jason’s site, I’ve never said that you shouldn’t post or that you have no right to express yourself. And even when you’ve disregarded Jason’s pleas and continued to post off-topic, I simply said that I would not follow suit. I’ve never asked Jason to delete your posts (not that he would listen even if I tried), so you’re simply mistaken in the extreme if you think I somehow have control over what you type or that I want to silence dissent.
LikeLike
February 19, 2021 at 2:46 pm
“NOTHING can separate us from the love of God, not even sin. Our commitment, promises, zeal and apologies to God do not save us or keep us saved. We are in blood covenant with Jesus and it cannot be broken.”
Oh, I don’t know about that:
• Mark 3:28-29 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.
• Matthew 12:31-32 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
• Luke 12:8-10 And everyone who speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
So it seems that if you imagine the Holy Spirit as a dancing little monkey in a diaper, you will lose your forgiveness and be damned, right?
LikeLike
February 21, 2021 at 11:07 am
derekmathias, that’s hilarious.
the unpardonable sin is rejecting the Holy Spirit therefore you are not indwelt by Him/not born again/not saved so you die in your sins and are condemned.
again, you play the silly bible verse vs. bible verse ignoring the verses you can not explain by saying the ones that support you over ride those. if so that goes against the law of contradictions and would prove the bible false.
the bible is clear once indwelt by the Holy Spirit (you say yes to Jesus and Jesus says yes to you) you are saved and can not lose your salvation —- you can only lose graces in this life and rewards in the next.
LikeLike
February 21, 2021 at 11:08 am
Naz, they just can’t understand the gospel of grace —- they have to add works.
LikeLike
February 21, 2021 at 2:06 pm
“the unpardonable sin is rejecting the Holy Spirit therefore you are not indwelt by Him/not born again/not saved so you die in your sins and are condemned.”
But that is not what the Bible says. Again, here are the relevant passages:
• Mark 3:28-29 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.
• Matthew 12:31-32 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
• Luke 12:8-10 And everyone who speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
So it’s pretty clear that REJECTING the Holy Spirit isn’t the only unforgivable, eternal sin, but BLASPHEMING against it. Blasphemy is the following:
“1a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
accused of blasphemy
b: the act of claiming the attributes of a deity
2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
Wouldn’t you consider imagining the Holy Spirit as a dancing little monkey in a diaper to be an act lacking reverence? Or what if you say the Holy Spirit is an unnecessary contrivance for an omnipotent God? You don’t have to REJECT the Holy Spirit to have such thoughts or speak such words. You can still accept it…yet according to the Bible, the above actions will revoke your forgiveness.
I’m not saying there aren’t contradictions in the Bible, but it does seem to be you who are ignoring the above passages in favor of others that you prefer.
And there are biblical reasons for believing you can lose your salvation, including:
• 1 Corinthians 9: 27 But I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.
• 2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?
• John 15:5-6 I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
Not that I’m taking a stance on this issue, but this is why some denominations say you can lose your salvation.
LikeLike
February 22, 2021 at 7:18 am
Derek, we meet again my friend ….. how’s it going ?
I just want to clear up the “rejecting” and/or blasphemy of the Holy Spirit discussion here.
Let’s keep it simple. The only means of salvation is Jesus Christ and believing in Him. Now, if a person rejects Jesus, i.e. does not believe in Him, which is the same as blaspheming the Holy Spirit because the Spirit of Jesus is the Holy Spirit … then it follows that person is damned and not forgiven because he has rejected the only means of forgiveness available to humanity.
Forgiveness is an all or nothing proposition. There is no such thing in the new covenant as partial forgiveness, or asking for forgiveness little by little, year after year or day after day. That is an old testament construct that has been confused and warped into the new covenant.
If you reject the only way of forgiveness then you cannot be forgiven, This does not apply to Christians because we are already saved, sealed and delivered for all time once and for all. God has given us a new heart and we wait for the resurrection when ultimately even our physical bodies will be redeemed. We cannot be “unborn” after we are born again. That’s why Jesus used the “born again” verbiage.
The bible is very clear on those saved and those that are not. There are sheep and goats, wheat and tares etc,,, its always a black and white distinction. There is no middle ground or partially saved people or partially unsaved people.
It’s typical of mankind to try and desecrate the greatness of God’s redemption plan and reduce it to a works analysis exercise. This is a very “religious” and legalistic based mind set that permeates the church at large. There is no question Christians are made to do good works, and we should do them. But to think that our salvation hangs in the balance every time we slip is making God into one who is dangling a carrot in front of us so that we would perform for Him. This is sadistic and warps the face of God. There is way to much emphasis on sin and not enough on God’s righteousness in the church.
Rom 8:38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers,
Rom 8:39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Cheers !
Naz
LikeLike
February 22, 2021 at 8:34 am
Naz writes:
The text itself clearly tells us what constitutes blaspheming the Holy Ghost:
Mark 3
28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
The scribes attributed Christ’s casting out of devils to the work of “Beelzebub” or “the prince of devils.” It is a specific act which, if done deliberately with full knowledge of its implications, cannot be forgiven.
Again, this is more of your theology by imagination. Of course all past sins from the genuinely repentant (Acts 2:38, 3:19), are forever forgiven, but that does not mean that Christians are free to sin post conversion:
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.
As has been shown above, John includes himself and as any casual reading of the book of 1 John clearly demonstrates, he was addressing Christians. Forgiveness is contingent upon confession and repentance.
Revelation 2
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
This address is to the messenger of the church of Ephesus. He isn’t an unbeliever, he had fallen from his former position, and he was commanded to repent or God would remove his candlestick from its place.
This is followed-up with a promise:
7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Eating of the tree of life is conditioned upon overcoming. Thus, the fanciful notion that the tree of life is unconditionally guaranteed to Christians is plainly false.
And yet, He gives another promise:
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
The promise to rule the nations which is concomitant with inheriting the heavenly kingdom is conditioned upon overcoming and keeping Christ’s works unto the end.
Want some more promises? Here’s another one:
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.
Being clothed in white raiment (signifying being cleansed from sin) and having one’s name in the book of life is again conditioned on overcoming. If you are unconditionally eternally secure, then your name cannot be blotted out, yet Christ makes it clear that a person’s name will most certainly be blotted out if he doesn’t overcome.
He further tells the messenger of Laodicea:
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.</i.
Now, if said messenger were never saved, what could it possibly mean that he would be spit out of the Lord's mouth? If he's lost, he's lost. So, what does the Lord command?
9 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
He uses the same terminology that is used elsewhere in the Bible relating to fathers and children:
Hebrews 12
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
He’s not talking to somebody who’s never been converted; he is addressing a backslidden Christian who has moved Christ outside his heart. He then closes His address to Laodicea with this:
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Sitting with the Lord in His throne is again conditioned on doing something, namely, overcoming as Christ overcame.
Now, however you define “overcoming,” it is something the Lord expects a person to do; it isn’t done for him. In your theology, a person’s salvation is dependent on said person’s acceptance of the gospel message and his total reliance on Christ as his savior. So, it’s not solely Christ who is doing the saving; you must DO something as well. But after conversion, according to what you were taught at Eisegesis Academy, your salvation is no longer conditioned on anything that you do. It took your willful exercise of faith to get into the church, but said willful exercise is no longer necessary to keep you in the church. It’s all done for you thereafter. Contrary to what you say above, that is patently false doctrine and has nothing to do with New Testament teaching.
How one can read the plain and unmistakable warnings to Christians in the New Testament and warp them with the intent of throwing them off to either unbelievers or pretend Christians is something that can only be explained in the Twilight Zone. It’s no wonder that the so-called faith has degenerated into the sloppy grace we see all over the world from people who profess Christianity.
LikeLike
February 22, 2021 at 9:30 am
“it’s not solely Christ who is doing the saving; you must DO something as well.”
Scalia, you are confused to what overcoming means and have somehow warped this into us being our own saviors … Surely, every believer has a response to the gospel message when the Lord knocks on the door. This is repentance and belief in the gospel. That faith carries us onto completion because Christ lives within us. Those that overcome are those that believe in Jesus Christ. Nobody is advocating sin or a sinful lifestyle, why do you presume this of people born of God ? Don’t you know that we are dead to sin and sin no longer has power over us ?
1Jn 5:4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.
1Jn 5:5 Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
If “overcoming” is what we need to “DO”, then how do you go about defining and measuring that ? How will we know if we have overcome enough ? How can we be sure that we are saved ?
Your theology is flawed and provides no assurance of salvation to the believer. You can quote scriptures all day long but you are taking them out of context.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Naz
LikeLike
February 22, 2021 at 10:02 am
Naz writes:
Of course overcoming is something we need to do, else the Lord would not have made His promises conditional upon our doing it. And your questions have been answered here and in other threads. That’s why I don’t consider you to be arguing in good faith. You’re just waiting for your turn to talk without giving due consideration of an opposing viewpoint. You don’t have to believe what I say in order to understand what I’m saying.
Now, what is the measure and how do you know? The answer is easy:
1 John 2
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
A person knows God and God’s love is perfected in said person when he keeps His commandments.
1 John 3
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
Again, our relationship with God is conditioned on our keeping His commandments and doing those things pleasing in His site.
And of course believing is something you DO because you’re affirming free will. If faith were imposed upon you irresistibly, as a Calvinist would allege, then you’re literally doing nothing of your own volition in a salvific sense. You’re merely a robot following the dictates of your program. And that’s why Christ called faith a work. You must do something in order to obtain life, and that’s called the act of faith. So, when the Bible says that we’re not saved by “works,” it’s a kind of work that we’re not saved by, not works, per se.
The bible defines its terminology. Twisting it into a pretzel to make it fit your theology is a clear indicator that your theology is skewed. Belief isn’t separate from act; it IS act. As shown above, you cannot even receive the Holy Spirit without obedience.
So, Naz, why don’t you try something new? Your typical hit-and-run, ignore arguments you cannot handle, bypass Scriptures you cannot deal with, tactic has never worked here. Your feeble attempts to force your views into the texts are easily shown to be just that: a clear misreading of the text. The new thing I suggest is to actually believe what the Bible says. Your, “are you gonna believe me or your own eyes?” approach doesn’t work. Just believe what the text says, Naz, and quit trying to make it say what it doesn’t. That’ll go a long way toward restoring your relationship with God.
LikeLike
February 22, 2021 at 10:05 am
And don’t forget that the Lord added “keeping my works unto the end” to overcoming as a condition of having a place in His kingdom.
LikeLike
February 22, 2021 at 11:06 am
“That’ll go a long way toward restoring your relationship with God.”
Are you kidding me ? You don’t know me or my relationship with God. Why do you presume ?
I’m not denying works altogether, James shows that a faith response or work happens when a person has faith. Like Abraham and Rahab. That delineates true faith versus lip service. However, notice in James that the “work” being talked about is not a life long track record of works but a faith response to God. Abraham’s track record is wanting, yet he is known as a person of faith and one who believed God.
You still didn’t answer my question, how do you know when you have overcome enough ?
Ultimately your theology turns into a sin management system and the grace of God is nowhere to be found as we work to keep up our salvation. It’s a bankrupt theology for a bankrupt denomination know as the UPC. I’ve been there, done that and know what I’m talking about from experience.
Naz
LikeLike
February 22, 2021 at 11:52 am
Naz, in typical ignore the argument mode, asks:
I don’t have to presume anything. By your own admission, you used to attend a Oneness Pentecostal church and now attend a church that preaches false doctrine. By definition, then, you’re backslid and in need of salvation. And no, I’m not kidding.
And you have your nerve to expect me to answer your questions when you’ve dodged practically everything I’ve written here. Nonetheless, I have answered your question, but since you’re not really paying attention, I guess it’s understandable that you missed it. As John stated, you know that you are of God and that you know God when you keep His commandments. Thus, when you keep God’s commandments, you know that you’re an overcomer. This isn’t rocket science, Naz.
Your beef isn’t with me; it’s with the Bible. Every argument you make is directly and clearly refuted by the plain text of the Scriptures. You’re clearly in face-saving mode. You’ve backslidden from the truth and are trying to justify it by defending your poor decision on a site hosted by a Oneness Pentecostal. Your arguments are demonstrably weak at best. Again, when you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to justify your beliefs, that’s a clear sign that you don’t have a leg to stand on.
LikeLike
February 22, 2021 at 2:07 pm
derekmathais, not only is that what it means ……. that’s what it has to mean.
because to blaspheme God is a pardonable sin and since the Holy Spirit is God blaspheming Him would be pardonable too. therefore it has to mean to reject receiving/being indwelt by Him ……. and if you are not indwelt by Him you die in your sins and are condemned.
it’s hilarious how you people ignore ALL of the evidence that proves you wrong ………. the Holy Spirit doesn’t jump in and out of you as you sin/repent. and there’s a very good reason the relationship between Jesus & His Church (ie. the ekklesia) is described as a marriage and Jesus tells us that marriage is un dissolvable ——— and since Jesus and His bride will live forever there’s no until death do you part.
LikeLike
February 23, 2021 at 7:00 am
Scalia, based on your theology, you are not saved as well. It is clear from your tone and harsh manner that you are demonstrating many sins to be repented of right here. Your own theology condemns you. Oh but all you need to do is ask for forgiveness … again, and God will forgive you. How is that different from being forgiven of all of your sins (past, present and future) once and for all at salvation ?
Scalia, why do you try to take out the speck in my eye when you can’t see the massive beam in your own eye ?
I had several pleasant conversations with an Evolutionary biologist on this site and we were able to keep it respectful and courteous despite the fact that we were in total opposition in our views. Yet you and I who believe in the same God are at each others throats.
The part which concerns me the most is that you have been this way for years and there has been no repentance. I started posting on here when I was still in the UPC ! That was over 12 years ago and you haven’t changed at all. In fact I think you’ve turned it up a notch. This is very concerning and I know that this denomination creates this type of individual in their mode of teaching and doctrine. It is YOU that needs to repent of sin that has been clear and evident for all to see.
I have never been happier and more content in my faith than I am now. God has opened my understanding and I am able to more clearly see the truth and the error within the church. I am not a backslider, Jesus is my Lord. The term backslider is a misnomer anyway, it assumes you’re climbing, we are not climbing to achieve eternal life like in the pagan religions.
I would like to call a truce and end the harsh and abrasive dialogue with you. We can agree to disagree and leave it at that. I apologize if I offended you with my beliefs and everything I’ve written has been in good faith and I’ve tried to address all the questions and arguments as best I can, even though it has not been satisfactory to you.
Naz
LikeLike
February 23, 2021 at 7:05 am
Paul, well said, yes the Holy Spirit does not jump in and out of people as they sin/repent. This is ridiculous.
I think it’s crystal clear that if you reject the only means of salvation available to humanity, the sin of that rejection or blasphemy is not forgivable.
Naz
LikeLike
February 23, 2021 at 2:23 pm
Naz writes:
Since your opinions and biblical teaching rarely intersect, it’s no surprise that you go astray here as well.
Acts 8
20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Titus 1
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Jude
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
Even raising my “demeanor” a notch or two doesn’t come close to most of these examples. The early church was very militant against false doctrine, so I’m quite happy to follow that example.
Jude 1
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
There is not the slightest discord between my behavior and biblical teaching. In fact, if you didn’t have skin in the game, you’d happily acknowledge that this is what one should expect when a person not only backslides, but fights against the truth as you so clearly do when this topic emerges. OSAS isn’t even a close call biblically, and every time you’ve cited the Bible in its defense, you’ve been shown how woefully you’re misreading the text. That of course doesn’t slow you down in the slightest, but if you think that I’m gonna shut up when you peddle false teaching, it ain’t gonna happen.
Same here. I’ve had lots of disagreements here without rancor, including some with you, when folks argue in good faith. You don’t argue in good faith when it comes to some subjects, and that isn’t a subjective observation. When a person refuses to engage an argument and repeats himself without addressing objections, that demonstrates incompetence or dishonesty. Either a person is incapable of following an argument or said person understands it perfectly but dodges it to avoid having to admit error. I have compassion on the former but not the latter.
Proverbs 14
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
2 Thessalonians 2
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
The fact that you feel good and claim to be happy has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of your claims. You walked away from the truth and are backslidden by definition. If you think for two seconds that the smile on your face changes God’s word, you’re sadly mistaken.
Actually, the vast majority of my dialog with you has been simple biblical exegesis. You object to my calling a spade a spade. I’ve actually gone into websites of former Apostolics who call our movement a “cult, legalistic and evil.” I’ve also entered trinitarian arenas and debated, among other things, the Oneness doctrine. I’ve never posted a “can’t we all just get along?” message. Given what I know they believe, I fully expect them to either think I’m lost or grossly mistaken. They couldn’t be truth to their beliefs and think otherwise. I just simply defend the faith as best as I can.
Moreover, nobody “offends” me with their beliefs. I used to attend an OSAS church and have maintained friendships with atheists, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, denominal Christians of various stripes, Jews, Muslims, and even a communist. Your beliefs don’t bother me; what I consider your dishonesty is what bothers me. You have not tried to “address all questions and arguments,” not even close! You make a false claim about a passage, and when objections are lodged from the text that your claim is clearly discordant with what it says, you simply ignore it and repeat yourself!
So, with respect to this so-called truce, as I’ve reminded you, we’ve had several pleasant conversations on these boards, and I expect that to continue. But if you peddle false doctrine, I will call you on it. Not only is unconditional eternal security false, it is dangerous, and all Bible-believing Christians will oppose it with as much vigor as they oppose other false doctrines (e.g. the Trinity).
LikeLike
February 23, 2021 at 2:26 pm
Naz writes:
Since nobody has argued that on these boards, this is a clear straw man.
And this is yet another example of your walking past an argument. This claim was addressed above, but you typically ignore the objection and repeat yourself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirt is clearly defined by the text in which it is addressed.
LikeLike
February 23, 2021 at 6:01 pm
“Derek, we meet again my friend ….. how’s it going ?”
All’s well, thanks!
“Let’s keep it simple. The only means of salvation is Jesus Christ and believing in Him. Now, if a person rejects Jesus, i.e. does not believe in Him, which is the same as blaspheming the Holy Spirit because the Spirit of Jesus is the Holy Spirit … then it follows that person is damned and not forgiven because he has rejected the only means of forgiveness available to humanity.”
Well, I have a problem with calling that rejection. After all, do you reject the Hindu god Brahma? Chances are, you don’t know much if anything about him simply because you didn’t grow up in a Hindu culture, and you don’t so much reject Brahma as you simply don’t believe he exists, right? Well, that’s how non-Christians regard Christianity–they simply believe it’s a false religion, just as you surely consider Hinduism a false religion. Rejection and lack of belief are very different, even opposite things. Rejection requires belief in a deity first, then a dismissal of that deity’s teachings or commandments, whereas a lack of belief is, well, simply a lack of belief, no different from lack of belief in UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot.
Also, I’ve known Christians who insist nonbelievers are incapable of blaspheming specifically because they don’t believe (“They know not what they do”), and that only believers who reject Jesus/God/Holy Spirit can be guilty of blasphemy.
“If you reject the only way of forgiveness then you cannot be forgiven,”
This is also something that doesn’t make much sense to me. Anyone who has ever forgiven someone before knows that the person you forgive doesn’t need to accept that forgiveness but receives it anyway. That’s because forgiveness is about the person doing the forgiving, not about the person being forgiven. For instance, if I were to be unfairly rude to you, and you decided to forgive me for that, I could ignore or even reject that forgiveness and it would make no difference, because the choice to forgive is yours, not mine. Do you see what I mean?
“This does not apply to Christians because we are already saved, sealed and delivered for all time once and for all. God has given us a new heart and we wait for the resurrection when ultimately even our physical bodies will be redeemed. We cannot be “unborn” after we are born again. That’s why Jesus used the “born again” verbiage.”
I get that, but I see a problem with that system: What if someone accepts Jesus’ forgiveness…but just doesn’t like Jesus, God or the Holy Spirit? What if he finds God’s behavior in the Bible morally reprehensible and doesn’t care to do anything he says…apart from accepting salvation? Or what if someone loses respect for God or even ceases to believe he exists?
I’ve known Christians like that, and in fact a good friend of mine was a fervent Evangelical pastor for 30 years before his studies of Christianity’s history eventually led him to the realization that he didn’t believe anymore (and there are a thousand more like him who have joined the Clergy Project: https://clergyproject.org/). Christianity has been losing over a million believers each year for at least the last dozen years (https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/).
So if Christians are “already saved, sealed and delivered for all time once and for all” and cannot be “unborn”…do they remain saved even when they don’t like God’s behavior or even no longer believe he exists? Do you see the problem here? I don’t think one can simply dismiss all these former Christians as never having been “real Christians” (at least not without committing a No True Scotsman fallacy), especially considering how many have devoted their lives to serving God.
“But to think that our salvation hangs in the balance every time we slip is making God into one who is dangling a carrot in front of us so that we would perform for Him. This is sadistic and warps the face of God. There is way to much emphasis on sin and not enough on God’s righteousness in the church.”
But isn’t this what every Christian must ultimately do: decide how to interpret the Bible? There are those who cannot abide by, say, God endorsing and even ordering people into slavery, and so they either ignore those parts of the Bible, interpret those parts in some way to lessen their impact (either by creatively comparing them with conflicting passages or just concluding the Bible is only inspired by God but not his actual words), or they embrace slavery as moral because God embraced it.
Right there you have at least four different interpretations, which tends to lead to different denominations, so that today there are over 40,000 denominations, each disagreeing with other denominations, sometimes over minor issues, sometimes over major doctrinal claims. The truth may not have changed…but what Christians BELIEVE is the truth changes constantly.
Thus you end up with the row between you and Scalia, even though you both surely consider yourselves good Christians who follow the truest form of Christianity. You can both point to biblical justification for your beliefs…but it is perhaps more of a case of seeking scripture that justifies one’s own values, rather than a strict adherence (or even ability to adhere) to what may be the actual truth.
LikeLike
February 23, 2021 at 8:50 pm
Naz, agreed and that’s the only interpretation regarding the unpardonable sin that makes any sense.
I’m always amazed at the resistance to the gospel of grace. once you add works grace is no longer grace, God would have to save you if you did the right amount of works (whatever that quantity is) because you earned your salvation and Jesus didn’t have to die because you can earn your salvation.
they ignore the fact that if you do have a true/saving faith you will follow Jesus and produce good works …….. but those works can’t and won’t save you. we are only saved because of what Jesus did.
LikeLike
February 23, 2021 at 11:15 pm
@Paul,
Everything, and I mean everything in Post 37 has been addressed above. Until you address said objections, your statements amount to nothing more than empty hand-waiving.
LikeLike
February 24, 2021 at 5:12 am
Paul, nicely said. For some reason there are those that feel because we talk about grace that somehow that automatically leads to a life of sin. Those that are ignorant about grace sometimes call it “sloppy grace” not realizing that grace actually teaches us to live a holy and righteous life and not a life of sin (Titus 2:11-12).
The reason the terms sloppy grace or greasy grace are used is because they only have an understanding of half of the gospel. If the gospel is just forgiveness and their is no change at the core of our being then yes, we have been granted a license to sin at will. However, that is not the case and that is not the gospel. I cannot stress enough the transforming power of God and what that does to a person at his core. God not only forgives us but He changes our desires even though we carry baggage from the old man/old life that we need to put in check.
Blessings to you.
Naz
LikeLike
February 24, 2021 at 6:25 am
“There is not the slightest discord between my behavior and biblical teaching. In fact, if you didn’t have skin in the game, you’d happily acknowledge that this is what one should expect when a person not only backslides, but fights against the truth as you so clearly do when this topic emerges. OSAS isn’t even a close call biblically, and every time you’ve cited the Bible in its defense, you’ve been shown how woefully you’re misreading the text. That of course doesn’t slow you down in the slightest, but if you think that I’m gonna shut up when you peddle false teaching, it ain’t gonna happen.”
This is your problem. You think you are so sure that you understand the text you go vigilante on me quoting scriptures that don’t apply to me. You set yourself as judge and jury not realizing who you are talking to. I am not a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness. You have grossly miscalculated your crusade and I don’t care if you think I’m peddling false doctrine. Because I know only 1 thing for certain, your theology DOES NOT WORK !
I cannot accept the interpretations of the bible from the UPC after seeing the effect it has on people’s lives and the confusion and damage that is has caused. There is a fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of the grace of God and the scriptures as a whole. You are a text book product of that. I don’t say this lightly but I have gone through a huge reformation of my understanding of the gospel, and my faith in Jesus is securely in tact, I assure you.
The only doctrine that the UPC got right is the Oneness of God. I still find the Trinity doctrine lacking and not a sufficient explanation of the Godhead. That said, I know those that believe in the Trinity do so to affirm the deity of Christ (which is not a bad thing) so I don’t think I need to make a big deal of something I can barely wrap my head around myself. I don’t divide with those people, but I know you do, again a product of your pedigree.
The bible text needs to be reconciled as a whole. We can’t site individual passages and create doctrines out of them. For example, God doesn’t strike people dead every time someone lies about money in the church (Ananias and Saphira). I’ve heard this preached as a warning to the church back in the day, what a gross misrepresentation and exegesis of that passage.
If the bible in one passage clearly speaks about eternal security, and then in an epistle we find some language that seems to indicate the opposite we need to carefully discern what and who the writer is speaking to. Otherwise we are just contradicting ourselves all over the place. When Jesus gives us assurance of eternal life we can’t just dismiss it based on some passages by Paul that say fornicators and liars shall not inherit the kingdom of God. This is what happens, you read this passage and say, brother Naz lied so now he has lost his salvation until he repents of the lie. So in your theology you are saved/not saved on a daily basis based on your works and whether you “repented” of that sin.
The correct approach is to read that passage and realize first of all we are not sinners by identity even though we sometimes sin. We have a new identity in Christ. If I lie I should stop lying and make right with my brother because that’s not who I am. Christians are not fornicators or liars, we are children of God. Paul’s meaning here is why do you behave as those that are not inheriting the kingdom of God, it’s not fit for you. Paul concluded by saying “and such “were” some of you” (1 Cor 6:11). Now if I am reading this letter and I am not saved, then this passage can be an outreach to me to help me see my sin and my need for Christ. We can’t assume everyone reading this letter or sitting in a pew is saved. So the warning will work to convict the sinner and reprove, not condemn, the Christian. Remember these are Corinthians, they were involved in all sorts of sexual sin and Paul knew who he was talking to.
This interpretation makes more sense, otherwise we can never have any assurance of salvation at all and you need to delete all the passages in the bible where our eternal security is clearly stated.
I’m sorry if you think I’m “talking past an argument”. I don’t intend to do anything in bad faith, that’s just the way I post. We would be here for months if I rebutted every single scripture and also I know who I am talking to, you will probably not receive it.
Go ahead and keep rebuking me if you wish, you are not my judge Scalia. I’m afraid you have been bewitched by the UPC, as I was, and are too entrenched to see past your nose. It’s ironic that we have gone through opposite reformations. You went from freedom to bondage and I have escaped bondage to freedom in Christ. Aren’t you exhausted yet ?
Mat 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Naz
LikeLike
February 24, 2021 at 8:05 am
Derek, nice response. I see where where you are coming from. I sympathize with your view because I know you speak honestly.
Let me try to address your points :
“Well, I have a problem with calling that rejection … ”
I don’t see how rejection and lack of belief are any different. I don’t believe in Hindu gods and as a result I reject them. I’ve heard of them and know what they stand for even though I can’t quote their scriptures, I know enough. You are very well acquainted with the bible so I don’t think you fall in the category of ignorance for starters. If you don’t want to call it rejection, I think that’s fine, unbelief is sufficient.
John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
“Also, I’ve known Christians who insist nonbelievers are incapable of blaspheming specifically because they don’t believe ….”
The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in the context it is written is attributing works of God to the devil or Satan. What it is essentially is a misappropriation of God or marring the face of God and making Him to be evil. Ultimately those that have any knowledge of God and reject or not believe in Him will eventually make Him evil so as to justify themselves. Otherwise, they stand convicted and that will not sit well with them. So yes I believe non-believers can blaspheme God even if they don’t realize they are doing so. It’s a bit if a moot point because if one does not believe in God in the first place then what follows doesn’t matter. Again, similar to rejection, I’m not going to die on this hill.
“Anyone who has ever forgiven someone before knows that the person you forgive doesn’t need to accept that forgiveness but receives it anyway..”
You are correct to a point, I agree that forgiveness is up to the one doing the forgiving and he is released from the bitterness that comes with holding a grudge. However, that relationship is still damaged because the one you forgave is still hostile towards you and presumably wants nothing to with you for example.
In terms of forgiveness with God, it’s similar but not quite the same I think. God is ready and willing to forgive all those that want His forgiveness. He wants nobody to perish but everyone to be saved. But the gospel is more than forgiveness, it’s about a relationship, a union to be forever undone and unbroken. He wants to indwell you spiritually and never leave you. For this to happen we need to recognize and acknowledge our sins for one, and secondly our need of Him. It’s a humbling experience and that’s the journey one needs to make in order to be saved. You can’t have God’s forgiveness apart from Him. The salvation experience is a reconciling of us to God relationally.
2Co 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
2Co 5:18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
“I get that, but I see a problem with that system: What if someone accepts Jesus’ forgiveness…but just doesn’t like Jesus, God or the Holy Spirit? What if he finds God’s behavior in the Bible morally reprehensible and doesn’t care to do anything he says…apart from accepting salvation? Or what if someone loses respect for God or even ceases to believe he exists?”
I know that you speak for yourself here to some degree and you have spent a lot of time trying to establish the position that God is unjust and even evil for condoning certain things like slavery etc…. As in the previous section, we can’t receive salvation with a picture of God like this, it won’t happen as that is clearly evident. I wish I had more time to try and explain those difficult passages where you see God acting in an unjust or evil manner. All I can say for now is that there are explanations for those events and that in opposition to that view, God is love insomuch that He came to be one of us to offer Himself and die for us so that we would be reconciled to God.
“Christianity has been losing over a million believers each year for at least the last dozen years ..”
We don’t know the stories and lives of all these people. Certainly not all professing Christians are the real article but that’s God’s problem not mine.
“But isn’t this what every Christian must ultimately do: decide how to interpret the Bible? ”
A lot is made of bible interpretation and rightly so, however sometimes we can’t see the forest from the trees and we lose ourselves in minor issues and sometimes not so minor stuff. We are not saved based on our ability to correctly interpret or understand the bible. None of us have it all 100% correct or completely deciphered. There is always room for learning and growing in understanding and knowledge. Who can claim that they have God all figured out ? That would be foolish I think and not very humble unless your part of a certain denomination who seem to have God in a box.
That said, I would say that true faith is a matter of the heart. I have known people that could never teach or preach or even read the bible that have a true and pure faith in Jesus that cannot be shaken. This is my mother, she is almost 90 years old and was Catholic for the better part of he life and I have never doubted her faith although she was taught incorrectly for most of her life. Finally she came to a clearer understanding of the gospel but she is by no means a bible scholar and could never engage in a discussion like this.
There will always be different takes on certain doctrines and some will be more right than others and some will be totally wrong. The central truth about Jesus Christ and His offer of salvation should be the core to any denomination. When you stray from that then it becomes non-Christian at that point. If you are a seeker of truth and God is leading you I believe a person will figure this out on their own.
“You can both point to biblical justification for your beliefs…but it is perhaps more of a case of seeking scripture that justifies one’s own values, rather than a strict adherence (or even ability to adhere) to what may be the actual truth.”
This is wise saying Derek and I think it has a lot of merit here. We must admit that we don’t have all the answers to everything. But faithfully seeking and believing is the journey and I believe God sees that and justifies us. There are numerous biblical accounts of those seeking truth that eventually found a person to lead them to the truth. It was their seeking that moved God to respond, I really believe that. In the end it’s not what we know but Who we know 🙂
Mat 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Cheers !
Naz
LikeLike
February 24, 2021 at 12:18 pm
Naz writes:
And Naz is so certain that he understands the text that he posts at every opportunity the false doctrine of OSAS. They who are in the business of expressing certainty shouldn’t be in the habit of criticizing others for doing the same. And it’s apparently perfectly appropriate for Naz to “go vigilante” by telling me to repent of various sins, but he objects when the shoe’s on the other foot. To that I say, physician, heal thyself.
I am not aware of any post accusing you of being either, but the false doctrine you peddle is just as pernicious and so warrants any Bible-believing person’s opprobrium.
Moreover, the verses I cited merely answer to Naz’s objection to my “tone.” If my tone is somehow unchristian, then the Apostles weren’t Christian either. There’s more to the matter than simply affirming false teaching. It’s continuing to peddle it in the face of substantive objections. It’s continuing to peddle it while deliberately ignoring the very passages he originally cited!
And you have consistently failed to even come close to showing the scriptural feasibility of your position. Your feeble efforts have been shown to be extremely shallow at best. So, instead of going to the Bible to make your case, you justify your stance from your personal observation of our doctrine’s “effect” on people. You personally dislike it, so that’s apparently enough.
Again, you need to heal yourself. You want to consistently “divide” the commentariat here by pushing a doctrine that you know perhaps most of us do not believe. You want to “agree to disagree,” but you do not hesitate to reflexively push OSAS and will go to the mat to defend it (of course, in a grossly inadequate manner) at every opportunity, and now you want to point your finger in the other direction to decry what you’ve been doing since you first came here. Heal thyself. You evidently think that OSAS is important enough to bark about it at will, but you object when somebody calls you on it? Heal thyself.
But you haven’t even gotten to first base to prove the template. We can prove scripturally and philosophically that God is an immaterial being. So, when the Bible tells us the He shall cover us with His feathers, we know that said passage is a metaphor. No violence is done to the text in order to view it in light of the template. But your attempts at exegesis do nothing of the kind. You warp and twist the plethora of passages which directly and clearly speak against your view to mean something they don’t come close to saying. And the prooftexts you use to establish your template are nowhere close to what you allege. You are thus reading your views into the text and not changing them to reflect the text.
Naz finally goes back to the Bible, but regrettably makes the same error he’s repeatedly made. Nobody assumes that everybody reading said passage is a Christian, but the text clearly shows us that Paul is writing to Christians! He is addressing lawsuits between believers and warns THEM to be not deceived about those who commit sins inheriting the kingdom of God. He then sews it together when he says that “such were some of you” (because not everybody has committed the sins he listed). The warning to Christians makes no sense if they are unconditionally secured no matter what they do. But because this passage is clearly directed to Christians and directly refutes your false doctrine, you dishonestly try to massage it and redirect it toward unbelievers. You thus take it upon yourself to rewrite the Bible. On that score, you’re no different from Joseph Smith.
Oh, please. You spent years posting off-topic, irrelevant posts. And even when Jason respectfully and repeatedly asked you and others to stop it, your oh-so-Christian “demeanor” flatly ignored him and sometimes participated in threads that were hundreds of posts long. You’ve got plenty of time to use this site as a quasi Facebook, but you don’t have time to analyze the passages you brought to the table?? You don’t have time to address the substantive counter arguments offered here? If you don’t have that kind of time, then why are you still posting here? Why do you keep replying to me with everything BUT scriptural analysis? Physician, heal thyself.
Eww…you tone is soooo unchristian and unbefitting a believer. But of course it’s perfectly fine when you do it, right? Physician, heal thyself.
LikeLike
February 26, 2021 at 7:28 pm
Scalia……. the problem is yours to address not ours. our evidence can not be refuted …… yours has been.
it’s hilarious people like you can’t comprehend what we are saying. what your position is ……. a saved person has to do “good works” not “should” do good works. “has to” is a works based salvation and errs greatly because God has to grant you salvation because you earned it and it makes grace null and void.
LikeLike
February 27, 2021 at 12:32 am
Paul writes:
You haven’t produced any evidence, and Naz’s feeble attempts blew up in his face.
Where?
Oh, I comprehend it just fine. You must have forgotten that I attended an OSAS church. I know exactly what you guys believe, perhaps more than you do (given the weakness of your arguments thus far).
Yes, that’s exactly what the Bible says:
Revelation 2
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
1 Corinthians 15
1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
Hebrews 10
26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
Hebrews 6
4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
Faith is a work:
John 6
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Why is faith a work? Because of your own will you’re doing something (exercising belief) in order to obtain something else, that is, salvation. Faith is not separate from act (I’m repeating myself because you missed it above); faith IS act (again, as shown above).
So, when the Bible tells us that we are saved by faith and not by works, the works by which we are not saved are a particular kind of work and not works per se.
Addressed both here and above. So, God imposes belief on you irresistibly or do you choose to believe or not believe? If you’re a Calvinist who affirms irresistible grace, then you need to quit praising Naz’s posts and condemn him for preaching a works-based salvation. He doesn’t believe that grace is irresistible, and that a person can certainly reject the gospel and be lost. Thus, each person has to DO SOMETHING in order to be saved, and that “something” is to specifically believe in the literal death, burial and resurrection of Jesus as our savior in order to be saved. And if you’re in agreement with that, then you too are a works advocate. Cast the beam out of your own eye before attempting to remove the mote out of another’s eye.
So, it is clearly nonsensical to scream that works cannot save you when the Lord you claim to serve defined belief itself as a work. But as the above dialog has shown, you really couldn’t care less what the Bible says in general nor what the Lord says in particular. Your made-up doctrine is more important to you than anything the Bible teaches:
John 8
43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
LikeLike
February 27, 2021 at 8:37 am
“The warning to Christians makes no sense if they are unconditionally secured no matter what they do. But because this passage is clearly directed to Christians and directly refutes your false doctrine, you dishonestly try to massage it and redirect it toward unbelievers. You thus take it upon yourself to rewrite the Bible. On that score, you’re no different from Joseph Smith.”
Scalia, I want to clarify my meaning of 1 Corinthians 6 and give some scriptural analysis to hopefully satisfy you or at least appease you so you can stop insulting me for the manner in which I post. This chapter will highlight the chasm in our theologies and hopefully help you see the proper exegesis of the passage.
For convenience I have pasted the chapter below.
1Co 6:1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?
1Co 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?
1Co 6:3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!
1Co 6:4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church?
1Co 6:5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers,
1Co 6:6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?
1Co 6:7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
1Co 6:8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1Co 6:12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything.
1Co 6:13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
1Co 6:14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.
1Co 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
1Co 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”
1Co 6:17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
1Co 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
1Co 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
1Co 6:20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
1) Yes, this is written to Christians. That’s not to say that some who read this were not saved and the application to them will be very different. But that’s not the thrust of my exegesis anyway.
2) Verse 1 makes it clear that there are the “unrighteous” and the “Saints”. These 2 groups are clearly delineated. It’s a clear distinction of identity of those that are saved (Saints) and those that are not (unrighteous). Your identity is either one of the two and not both or this whole chapter would make no sense and be confusing to read.
3) Paul is chastising the Saints for going to court against their brother and behaving like the unrighteous which is putting them to open shame.
4) “Do you not know” … This phrase is used repeatedly in this chapter to the point where I would name this the “Do you not know” chapter. This is key to understanding the context and will also help us to understand that our identity is not the sum total of our works or performance.
The “Do you not know” phrase is used to stress to the Saints “who” they and “who” they are not. He starts off by saying the Saints will judge the world, presumably at the final judgment. I can’t speak to that and don’t want to try and unpack the ramifications of this. Paul is not condemning the Saints but appealing to them by reminded them who they are as Saints and that there behavior should match that identity. These are the “Do you not know” verses for emphasis:
“do you not know that the saints will judge the world”
“Do you not know that we are to judge angels”
“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ”
“do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit”
At no time does Paul even hint that their behavior has jeopardized their standing as Saints or that they need to repent and ask for forgiveness in order to retain their Sainthood. If you believe this you are reading into these passages your theology of works to maintain salvation. Paul does never condemn the Saints but you can say he is reproving or rebuking them which is much different than condemnation.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
5) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
This is the verse that is used by the UPC and others to condemn the Saints. Notice Paul says the “unrighteous” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Who are the “unrighteous”. It was clear from verse 1 that the “unrighteous” and the “Saints” are 2 separate groups. Just like the sheep and the goats, wheat and the tares etc…
Just as Paul reminds the Saints of who they are in my previous point, he also reminds them of who they are NOT. He does not condemn them but makes sure they understand that people who by nature are idolaters, liars, adulterers etc… will not inherit the kingdom. He does not say that “any” person who commits a lie or commits a sin will miss the kingdom of God. How do we know this ? The very next verse,
“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. ”
Paul goes out of his way to make sure that he qualifies the previous verse with this one as to not confuse the Saints of the reality of who they are in Christ. It’s a beautiful verse which becomes null and void in the works-based salvation theology.
6) Paul’s conclusion : Glorify God !
So after rebuking the church what are Paul’s final instructions ?
Repent and ask for forgiveness -> NO
You have lost your salvation -> NO
You are backsliders -> NO
Rather, Paul is graceful isn’t he. And why shouldn’t he be.
1Co 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
1Co 6:20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Paul’s final words to them is that they have been bought and don’t even belong to themselves. Therefore, they should behave according to their identity as children of God and temples of the Holy Spirit. In other words, glorify God in your behavior because that is WHO YOU ARE !
CONCLUSION : Salvation changes your identity and you are not the sum total of your works. Once saved, always saved.
This is not sloppy grace, there is no such thing as sloppy grace and nobody, myself included, has ever condoned a sinful lifestyle for those that are saved. But the response to Saints that sin is one of reproof/rebuke and grace not a response of condemnation.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Regardless of our difference in views, I still consider you a brother in Christ Scalia. I have not for one moment seriously thought anything else, otherwise I would have to condemn myself as well.
Good day Scalia.
Naz
LikeLike
February 27, 2021 at 5:53 pm
well said Naz…… but they can’t see.
Scalia……. see this is why ILOL. you didn’t refute my evidence when we last had this conversation and you’ve been intellectually dishonest by not posting the over whelming evidence that exists proving our position correct. then giving evidence why that’s impossible because if it’s not impossible —– it’s possible. and i use those words not as an one would say it’s possible God doesn’t exist but along line lines it’s possible Petros does not equal petra. there’s 2 sides to these disagreements and what you’ve done is what most people do …. ignore or dismiss what proves you wrong and keep harping on what you believe proves you correct.
i’ll refresh you/the others with a couple of hi-lites from our last conversation and i’ll paraphrase to save the effort of copying and pasting it here ……..
I mentioned Jesus will not let those God gave Him be snatched from His hand …… you hilarious said what amounts to —- but a person can jump out of His hand ignoring to get into His hand you consented to a covenant that meant you couldn’t do that —- jump out & you would be included in the anybody. the other major point you ignored —— is if im a born again/indwelt by the Holy Spirit believer how can I be unborn again/abandoned by the Holy Spirit. and if the Holy Spirit doesn’t abandon me —- how can a born again/ indwelt by the Holy Spirit person be condemned. you refused to answer by you indicated —- you are indwelt by the Holy Spirit you sin the Holy Spirit leaves you until you repent the Holy Spirit indwells you again until you sin repeat ………….. you then did what the childish roman catholic i talk to do —— called me names, denied that’s what you were saying and stormed off.
see if you can’t disprove our evidence that proves us correct then your evidence if correct proves the bible contradicts itself …….. see why ILMAO ?
but if you don’t disprove our evidence that means we are right and our interpretation of your evidence not yours has to be correct or the bible contradicts itself and isn’t worth the paper it’s written on then.
from memory again some of your big evidence was a church having it’s lampstand removed —- that’s a denomination not a believer & quenching the Holy Spirit which you insisted meant the Holy Spirit leaves you or is put out and therefore no longer indwelt. to which i pointed out your error ——— that greek word means dampened/suppressed not extinguished there.
it’s very simple “have to do” is different from “should do.” have=works based and is the reason Augustine erred and had to come up with the silly doctrine of limbo. should is totally compatible with salvation being a gift you receive via grace —— you don’t work for a gift.
what you are missing is the law keeping, salutary/good works get you blessing in this life and rewards in the next —– totally independent of salvation.
LikeLike
February 27, 2021 at 9:23 pm
Naz, at the very least you’ve cited the Bible and attempted to explain what some passages mean. However, as is typical of your style, you’ve misread what you’re trying to explain because you’re almost completely unfamiliar with the position you’re trying to rebut. If memory serves me correctly, you spent around 10 years in a Oneness Pentecostal church (specifically an assembly in the United Pentecostal Church organization). One would think that you would have at least taken the time to fully understand the positions your church took, even if you never believed what it taught or you eventually came to reject it. Such familiarity would have caused you to appropriately target the main lines of dissent to avoid unnecessary dialog.
Nobody disputes that Paul mentions two categories of people. Paul’s admonishment against bringing a brother to law before unbelievers is the proximate context of the first part of the chapter. The two general groups are the unrighteous and the righteous. The unrighteous are characterized by the works of unrighteousness, and the righteous are characterized by the works of righteousness.
Recall that there were no chapter/verse divisions in Paul’s original letter. The previous chapter addressed sexual immorality in the Church at Corinth, and Paul chastens them for their arrogance:
1 Corinthians 5
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.
2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
The church had apparently kept in fellowship one of its members who was an unrepentant fornicator. He further admonishes them:
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—
10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
The church is thus instructed not to avoid the immoral of the world, but rather to shun anybody who is part of the church (who bears the name “brother”) who is living in open sin. This makes it clear that there can be no blurring of the lines between good works and evil works. God’s people live holy, and if somebody in the church doesn’t live holy, said person is to be expelled. You can’t even have a meal with such a person!
He then corrects them for going to law against one another and says:
1 Corinthians 6
4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church?
5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers,
6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?
7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
So, let’s take a little inventory. Paul accuses them of shameful behavior and fraud. In other words, those in Corinth guilty of the behavior Paul highlights should be ashamed of themselves. Now, Naz, why would a believer be ashamed of righteous conduct? It should go without saying that their conduct was shameful because it was wrong. Moreover, you’re certainly not going tell us that fraud is righteous conduct, are you? Rather, defrauding your brother is a sinful act.
So, if the righteous are characterized by righteous acts, then if Christians engage in unrighteous acts, they are no longer righteous.
1 John 3
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Note, the problem in Corinth wasn’t some temporary, one-time slip-up (though I’m not minimizing that kind of infraction). Their behavior was chronic enough to reach Paul’s ears some distance away (before the telephone, internet age), and for him to write a letter of rebuke over it. In other words, some at Corinth were behaving like the unrighteous to such an extent that Paul heard about it a long way off. Now, Naz, here’s the key:
1 Corinthians 6
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived…
The Greek word for “unrighteous” here is ἄδικος which characterizes a violator—one who does wrong. Its emphasis is on the act of wrongdoing. In other words, those who do wrong shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Moreover, Paul warns them against deception: DO NOT BE DECEIVED. Deceived about what, Naz? Paul directly explains what he means by that: Corinth was sinning by fellowshipping brothers who were fornicating and by defrauding one another. There is a clear line of demarcation between the righteous and the unrighteous, but if you live like an unrighteous person, you will not inherit the kingdom of God. Whoever is telling you that you can live like the unrighteous and still be saved is DECEIVING you, so don’t fall for it! If you live unrighteously, you will BE unrighteous and lost. Corinth wasn’t deceived into thinking that those outside the church are saved in their unrighteous behavior. Paul rebuked them for THEIR unrighteous conduct.
Now, we get to another part of the passage that you ignored for some reason. It makes no sense why you would ignore it both because you should have known that this is part of our argument (if you paid attention while attending an Apostolic church) and because I specifically cited it above. Paul elaborates:
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”
17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?
He brings Corinth back to the general topic of fornication (dealt with in a specific manner in the previous chapter) and informs them that the act of fornication joins the body of Christ with wickedness. Paul said that it is something he would “never” do. So what’s the takeaway from that, Naz? Is it impossible for a believer to commit fornication? Of course not, for Paul warns them to “flee…sexual immorality” because it is a sin against one’s own body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Corinth knew exactly the implications of such a sin because Paul previously informed them in the same letter:
1 Corinthians 3
16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?
17 If anyone destroys [corrupts, pollutes] God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.
So, yes, there are two general categories of people: The righteous and the unrighteous. Holiness characterizes the righteous (saints–holy ones), and sin characterizes the unrighteous. It is clearly possible for believers to sin, for which they are both rebuked and warned that God would destroy them for it. It is necessary for true believers to shun those who call themselves believers who live in unrepentant sin, to live holy lives, and to never allow themselves to be deceived into thinking that they can live any way they please and still be saved. If you live unrighteous, you pollute God’s temple, and when you pollute God’s temple, God will destroy you.
There is therefore nothing in this passage nor anyplace else in the Bible that teaches the damnable doctrine of once saved, always saved. Both the proximate and general context loudly and clearly speaks to the fact that Christians can and do sin, and that they must repent of such behavior. And, thankfully, that’s what Corinth did:
2 Corinthians 7
8 Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while—
9 yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.
10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.
Paul rejoices because Corinth repented and states emphatically that “repentance…leads to salvation.” In the context of Corinth’s repentance, Paul clearly ties the two (repentance and salvation) together with respect to one’s standing with God.
You see, Naz, either your former church was pretty deficient in the theology department or you really have memory issues. What I’ve just typed shouldn’t be news to you, and if you had recalled it, that’s where you would have aimed your fire. Your “exegesis” demonstrates a very shallow understanding of the context of Paul’s letters to Corinth and a shoddy understanding of the position we defend. The doctrinal stance you’ve adopted has no support anywhere in the Bible. This isn’t close to being a close call. In fact, OSAS is one of the easiest delusions to dismantle of the many that are in circulation. It has such a hold on people because they adamantly refuse to accept the Bible for what it says and instead read into it what it doesn’t say. Sad indeed.
LikeLike
February 27, 2021 at 10:30 pm
@Paul, you are typically mischaracterizing the previous interaction between us, which is probably why you didn’t provide a link to it. I’m very happy for the readership of this blog to re-read the previous posts and decide for themselves who’s being dishonest. So, please provide a link in your next post (I’m not going to hunt for it). And since most of your post attempts to inaccurately represent that discussion, I won’t comment further in that regard until you produce the link.
You do bring up something we’ve discussed here, and I’m happy to address it now:
And this is typical of an OSAS believer’s attempt to re-write the Bible. Let’s look again at one of the passages:
Revelation 2
1 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.
What is a “lampstand”?
Revelation 1
20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
Thus, the message to Ephesus was to its “angel” or messenger, and the lampstand is an individual assembly or church. It says nothing about a “denomination.”
A “star” is a burning light and a lampstand is a device for giving light. In this instance, an oil lamp which supplies the fuel for the light to burn. The message to the messenger in Ephesus is:
Revelation 2
4 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.
5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.
So, it is clear that the Master isn’t speaking about a denomination; He is speaking to a person who had fallen away from his initial love of Christ. And since the allusions to the tabernacle are obvious throughout Revelation, we know that the seven-lamped candlestick was one unit. All lamps were conjoined to the same source. This warning, then, is clearly foretelling a separation between the lamp and the messenger which of course severs the star from the church.
Well, okay, I’ll forgo waiting for the link and address this one right now.
Thayer: The word σβέννυμι means to “extinguish, quench, of fire or things on fire, to be quenched, to go out,” and “metaphorically to quench, to suppress, stifle.”
BDAG: “to cause an action, state, or faculty to cease to function or exist, quench, put out, extinguish, stifle, suppress, to cause an action, state, or faculty to cease to function or exist.”
LSJ: “quench, put out, of liquids – to dry up, quell, check, run dry, cancel (as in legal proceedings)”
So, the word literally means what the some 20-odd translations (the ones that I checked) of said verse means: to quench, put out a fire, extinguish or to dry up. Unless you speak Greek, you’re in no position to correct the literally hundreds of scholars who are responsible for translating all the major English translations of the Scriptures. And even if you are a Greek scholar, your lone opinion doesn’t stand credibly against the overwhelming body of Greek scholars who believe otherwise.
In a metaphoric sense, σβέννυμι can mean “suppress,” but even the word suppress means, as its primary definitions show: “to put an end to the activities of (a person, body of persons, etc.): to do away with by or as by authority; abolish; stop (a practice, custom, etc.).” So, you’ve either got an extremely faulty lexicon or you deliberately hid said word’s primary definitions in favor of a metaphoric one which would support the idea of hiding or restraining something that remains. Thus, the dishonesty that you displayed in our previous dialog remains in our current one. You’re so obsessed with proving yourself “right,” you’re willing to manipulate lexical texts and the sacred text to save face.
As our previous dialog will demonstrate, you told a deliberate falsehood and came nowhere near to refuting anything I argued. And as this “dialog” demonstrates (I use the term “dialog” very loosely), you don’t have a logical leg to stand on.
And if memory serves me correctly, you deliberately avoided the main body of my arguments in the previous thread, and true to form, you do so here. You haven’t addressed one of my positive arguments above, including my most recent reply to you. So, please don’t pretend that you’ve come anywhere close to engaging in any serious manner the current topic. As I told you previously, I am not at all interested in dialoging with dishonest persons. You illustrate perfectly what Bible believers call “sloppy grace.” You can lie and cuss because it’s all covered by the blood, right? Living holy is only an accessory that you can leave behind at leisure, right? And that, folks, is why churches all over have embraced the world and why sin fills local assemblies from the pulpit to the door.
LikeLike
February 28, 2021 at 6:04 pm
“it’s hilarious how you people ignore ALL of the evidence that proves you wrong ………. the Holy Spirit doesn’t jump in and out of you as you sin/repent.”
Really? So those million-plus Christians who lose their faith every year in the US alone…they’re still saved even if they no longer believe? So what happens if you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, but then decide you just don’t like him or care about his teachings? The Holy Spirit just keeps hanging around in them despite that lack of belief?
I know some will claim that those ex-Christians were “never REALLY saved,” but that would be news to them. If you talk with them you find they inevitably believe they felt the Holy Spirit just as fervently as any other Christian. There are even thousands of clergy who have lost their faith after DECADES spent devoting their lives to God (I’m good friends with one of them myself).
So it seems to me the Bible supports the notion of the Holy Spirit “jumping in and out of you” as your faith changes. Because if not, then you’ll end up with a lot of surprised ex-Christians appearing in heaven with their “get in free” ticket stamped! 😉
LikeLike
February 28, 2021 at 9:32 pm
Scalia ……… LOL and your silliness hasn’t refuted that a born again/indwelt Holy Spirt believer will/could be abandoned by God. you are hilariously arguing that God is a liar ……. because there’s numerous verses stating He won’t abandon us.
sadly you are spiritually blinded to the biblical truth that you can’t earn a gift and Jesus did it all and it’s only by grace we are saved. why would you worship a God that needs your help to save you ?
LikeLike
February 28, 2021 at 9:44 pm
derekmathias ………… LOL, that’s right the Holy Spirit doesn’t jump in and out of you when you fall. there’s a reason Jesus and His Church relationship is described as a marriage and Jesus says once married always married. so just like the good thief …….. if you says yes to Jesus and Jesus says yes to you congratulations your a member of His Church and saved ……… He won’t abandon you. you can lose blessing in this life and rewards in the next but like the apostle Paul says you will be saved. all James is doing is giving you a check list to make sure Jesus said yes because like the good thief we don’t hear Him.
hilariously many Christians believe they have to earn the free gift of eternal life. and the wages of sin is death and we are all sinners so we can’t earn eternal life.
LikeLike
February 28, 2021 at 10:12 pm
Paul writes:
We’re done, Paul. If you think I’m going to keep playing your dishonest game, you’ve got another thing coming. I’m not dancing to your tune, Bub. I actually replied multiple times to that point, but you’re in your predictable prevarication gear.
LikeLike
February 28, 2021 at 11:47 pm
Scalia ……… it’s hardly a dishonest game im playing and there’s no need for me to spend all that time looking for the original conversation because i most certainly am not “mischaracterizing” it. and it’s a free country you can do as you please ………. but you certainly did not prove God will abandon one of His children and you and those like you are teaching a works based salvation for sure which is also non-bilbical.
i don’t have to disprove i need to work to obtain a gift …… that’s not only silly in this world it’s not biblical. all of us have sinned ….. if you not yourself you are a liar. you have to be perfect to earn eternal life and none of us are ——-
the only way we can have our sins forgiven is because of what Jesus did. even accepting Jesus’ gift of eternal life is not our doing ……. we can only ask because He gave us the gift of faith.
LOL ………… you and your buddies keep trying to earn your free gift. we just accept it and as a by-product practice law keeping and salutary/good acts that we don’t do on our own but through the power of the Lord that works through us ……….. ALL the glory is Jesus’ because if it wasn’t i could boost about my feeble works.
LikeLike
March 1, 2021 at 12:04 am
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Salvation-Not-By-Works
if that doesn’t prove not by works to you nothing will.
LikeLike
March 1, 2021 at 8:38 am
Paul writes:
And I’ve already demonstrated that you ARE mischaracterizing it. Typically, you ignore what’s said and repeat yourself like Naz. I indeed answered every one of the arguments you made in the previous thread, and you most certainly told a deliberate falsehood (you lied) on that thread which is why I disengaged from you.
More empty hand-waiving on your part. Proof by assertion is still fallacious, Paul. It isn’t so just because you say it’s so. I provided many of the arguments both here and in the previous thread. You ignored almost all of them which renders your denial rather bereft of heft.
I guess your hands don’t get tired of waiving irrelevantly in the air, but waiving them doesn’t prove a thing, especially when that point was directly engaged above.
Though God gives to every man the measure of faith (Ro. 12:3), not “every man” exercises that faith. And you can scream until you’re blue in the face, but the Lord specifically called belief itself a work, so it appears your beef is with Him, not me.
However, if you’re really saying that God does the believing for us because He imposes it upon us irresistibly (that we’re merely robots functioning according to a preset program), then you should do two things: Rap Naz over the knuckles for having the temerity to say that we’re responsible for believing on the Lord (thus rendering vacuous all your praise of him), and acknowledge that even if we’re following a program, we’re still doing something. Since faith/belief is a work and since it is directly and explicitly defined as an ACT in the Bible, it is “silly” to ignore its scriptural definition in favor of a made-up definition that has no basis in the Scriptures. Even when your mommy gives you a gift, you still have to receive it and utilize it in order to obtain its benefits. If you reject God’s gift, you get punished, and if you chuck your mommy’s gift in the garbage, you’d likely get punished as well, so quite obviously you’re required to do something in order obtain the benefits of said gift. If I give my robot a can of oil to enable “him” to oil his squeaky parts, I have to program the robot to receive the oil can (to pick it up) and to oil itself as needed. He is thus working, even if I program him to do so, to appropriate the gift. If the robot does nothing, the oil will be of no benefit to him. The only way anything akin to salvation being totally free of any work on our part is if God simply snatches us up to heaven without our exercising any faith. We don’t have to believe in Him, we don’t have to confess Him, and we don’t have to keep any of His commandments. We can be atheists, Buddhists, Muslims or head-hunting savages, and God teleports us to heaven anyway. Only under that scenario can you truly say that “salvation” is 100% without any merit on our part. Only then can you truly say that we do NOTHING to obtain salvation. So, whether or not we have salvific free will, we have to do something in order to obtain salvation. And for the umpteenth time, if the Bible is infallible because it is inspired by God, then the works by which we are NOT saved are particular kinds of works and not works per se.
And your “once married, always married” objection was directly addressed in the previous thread, and you didn’t raise it again for obvious reasons (because it is clearly disproved scripturally), remember? You clearly don’t remember the ebb and flow of that discussion, which is why you have no basis to affirm or deny whether you mischaracterized anything. I remember that interaction, and you are undoubtedly mischaracterizing it.
There’s not a snowball’s chance in Riyadh that I’ll read any link of yours given your total disregard of anything I’ve argued here. You are either capable of defending your beliefs or you’re not. Clearly, by appealing to a link to do what you should be able to do, you advertise your impotence.
LikeLike
March 1, 2021 at 12:28 pm
“So it seems to me the Bible supports the notion of the Holy Spirit “jumping in and out of you” as your faith changes. Because if not, then you’ll end up with a lot of surprised ex-Christians appearing in heaven with their “get in free” ticket stamped! ”
Derek, I have tried in previous posts to explain the immensity of what happens to a person at his core when he comes to a true faith in Jesus. It appears that the “born again” experience has been discounted here. I don’t mean this experience to mean a feeling or a euphoria as it is so misrepresented in some churches. I’m talking about a true repentance and 180 towards God.
I don’t think it’s as clear cut as it may seem. We don’t know peoples hearts and some can go years living in denial and may even seem passive about it but we don’t know what is going on inside. Surely there are some that never had a true faith from day 1 and just followed religious rules or a sin management system. There are a lot of Catholics like this, as I was one of these in my youth.
In the end, everyone that names the name of Christ should be careful to maintain good works. Whether such a person is truly saved or playing church is really not up to us to judge, that’s God’s job and He’s the only one that really knows anyway.
2Ti 2:19 But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
Eph 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Naz
LikeLike
March 1, 2021 at 12:54 pm
2 Timothy 2
12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;
LikeLike
March 1, 2021 at 5:10 pm
Naz …… they just can’t get it. not only do we have irrefutable biblical evidence ….it’s not by works that evidence also warns about believing your works can save you.
i couldn’t believe how simple the real gospel message was when i was first shown “the roman road.” and the apparent contradiction between Jesus & James vs Paul melted away.
they can’t see what they are really proving ……. God knows what you are going to do after He makes you His child so why would He make you His child and then abandon you ?
LikeLike
March 1, 2021 at 6:39 pm
“It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:”
LikeLike
March 2, 2021 at 1:35 pm
Timothy 2:13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself.
Naz
LikeLike
March 2, 2021 at 9:58 pm
11It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
12If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
13If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
no problem for me because the apostle Paul can’t contradict himself. he tells us if you’re saved you will be saved (“To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”) even if you sin. and Jesus promises He won’t abandon us so even if just 1 group and not 2 you are not sent to hell …….. He denies you to the Father but you are still saved.
they keep forgetting the marriage analogy ………. marriage is supposed to be for life and even though Jesus gave an exception (porneia) He doesn’t have to take it, He can forgive us. so even if we leave, play the harlot, sin Jesus is perfect so we don’t have grounds to divorce Him. and He says He won’t abandon us ….. so that means He won’t grant us a divorce so we get saved. lose blessing in this life because we left Him and rewards in the next yes. but sill “saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” but ashamed and embarrassed until the time God wipes all of our tears away.
no one has ever proved “not by works” doesn’t mean “not by works.” all anybody has done is post verses out of context saying this proves “by works” and ignoring all of the verses that prove “not by works” or give the lame excuse that means ceremonial works. they do this usually by twisting Jesus’ and James’ words and pervert the true meaning of faith alone. plus forgetting the most important thing ……….. without what Jesus did no one could be saved period. so again that proves 100% we are not saved by our works.
LikeLike
March 3, 2021 at 6:12 am
2Ti 2:11 The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
We “have died” (past tense) with him at salvation and live through His resurrection. This applies to all believers.
2Ti 2:12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;
It is not an endurance contest and you are not saved by your courage and bravery for standing up to persecution. Those that endure are the true believers and not those like in Hebrews for example who return to the Temple (Moses) when persecution comes. For those that endure the seed of the Word has taken root in them and they produce the fruit of endurance. All believers endure because God started a good work in us and will bring it to completion.
Php 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Those that deny Him are not in Christ and walk away never having been born again.
2Ti 2:13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself.
Even when we fail, Jesus is faithful. He cannot deny Himself because He lives in us, we are His possession bought with a price. We are not saved by our faithfulness but by the faithfulness of Jesus. He is our anchor.
Heb 6:18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.
Heb 6:19 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain,
Naz
LikeLike
March 3, 2021 at 12:42 pm
@Paul cites 2 Tim. 2:11-13 and writes,
So, instead of exegeting verse 12, he dumps it because he’s convinced himself that other verses assure his salvation unconditionally. In other words, we’re apparently free to either snip this verse out of the Bible or we can ignore it because other verses contradict it. Neither of these approaches is appropriate exegesis. First, even if other verses assure unconditional security, this verse still needs to be explained in a manner that is not discordant with its immediate context or its plain wording. Some form of harmonization is required which Paul altogether ignores. Second, the cited verses come nowhere near what Paul alleges:
1 Corinthians 5
5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
If “this man” is unconditionally secure, then why should Corinth deliver him to Satan? Note, Corinth was not instructed to deliver the offender to Satan because keeping him would make them look bad to the community. Rather, they are instructed to disfellowship the offender “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” It is thus clear that the person in question was not saved and was in need of discipline in order to turn him around. Moreover, Paul calls this apparent brother “wicked”:
13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
So, it is clear that the offender is a chronic offender who is not repenting of his deeds. And what, precisely, does the Bible say about a chronic offender?
1 John 3
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
So, we have at least two interpretive options: a) The offender was never saved (contrary Paul’s appeal to this man’s unconditional security); or b) This man was saved but had backslidden and is now a child of the devil. Living in unrepentant sin clearly demonstrates the parentage of Satan, as living holy demonstrates divine parentage. So, if this man were not saved, then this verse has no bearing on eternal security. If this man were saved and eternally secure, then whomever he was delivered to is irrelevant to saving of his spirit.
Paul continues:
Now, either Paul isn’t reading my posts or he is AGAIN deliberately lying. Anybody following this thread can immediately verify that I didn’t “keep forgetting” Paul’s vacuous marriage analogy. I directly addressed it in the previous thread, to which he replied with silence, and I raised it again here by way of reference. And if Paul isn’t reading my posts, then he is in no position to complain about who forgets what for he has no idea whether I’ve forgotten anything.
As to marriage, I find it odd that a Christian even has to offer a reply because anybody who’s read the New Testament and paid attention immediately knows the very obvious reply:
2 Corinthians 11
2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.
Nobody in the church is at present “married” to the Lord. The Lord will present the bride to Himself upon His return (Eph. 5:27). We are thus in an engagement relationship which can of course be broken over unfaithfulness:
Matthew 1
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.
At this point, Joseph had no idea that the child his “fiancé” was carrying was of supernatural origin. He, therefore, had every legal right to divorce her. Moreover, for your analogy to work, you would have to convince perhaps the significant majority of the readers of this blog that your interpretation of marriage is correct. Based on my reading of the comments here over the years, most of the participants subscribe to the “innocent party” doctrine which allows for remarriage upon the unfaithfulness of the other party. In other words, your appeal to the permanence of Christian marriage is a non-starter to most of this site’s participants.
All of this has been addressed above. Until you get around to directly engaging the arguments, you’re still waiving your hands.
LikeLike
March 3, 2021 at 2:28 pm
Naz too cites 2 Tim. 2:11-12 and writes:
-Like Paul in Post 61, etc., Naz doesn’t bother to exegete verse 12 and instead seeks to replace it with his own philosophy. To the Apostle Paul, endurance is conditional, and he includes himself: If WE endure, WE will will also reign with Him. Thus, reigning with Christ is conditioned upon our endurance. He then introduces another conditional: If WE deny Him, He also will deny US. Naz seeks to obliterate the plain text by arguing that true Christians will endure and thus need never fear rejection. This plainly overlooks the fact that the Apostle didn’t say that. If we’re eternally secure, endurance and reigning aren’t on the table. Moreover, as is typical of Naz’s argumentative style, he completely overlooks almost all of the points argued above as if they’ll go away if he ignores them.
Now, Naz imagines that every true believer will endure, thus enabling him to put a piece of masking tape on 2 Tim. 2:12. This is not only directly contradicted by the above arguments, but it also ignores what the Lord plainly said in His earthly ministry:
Matthew 24
10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another.
11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.
12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold.
13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
First, you cannot “fall away” from something you were never a part of, and if they were never a part of the faith, it makes no sense to say they fell away from it. And if they were only apparently part of the faith, it would be far more accurate to say that “many hypocrites will betray the righteous…” Second, you cannot “grow cold” unless you were at one time hot, so it cannot be said that these individuals had no real love for the Lord. Third, if the righteous are eternally secure and will endure regardless the circumstances, then speaking of salvation as if conditioned upon endurance is akin to saying that if you’re eternally secure, then you’ll be eternally secure. Telling the world that those who endure will be saved is nonsensical because all true believers cannot fail to endure. And a statement to unbelievers about endurance is equally incoherent from an OSAS perspective since belief itself is the factor that determines salvation. “He that goes to heaven will be in heaven!” makes a person sound like he’s not paying attention to what he’s saying.
Moreover, Naz repeats the error about Hebrews returning to the Law. As demonstrated above, the writer was addressing Christians, not Jews or pretend Christians. Naz thus builds his argument upon a disproved premise.
As the reader can see, Phil. 1:6 has no relation to Naz’s follow-up comment. As noted above, Paul included himself in the statement: If WE deny Him, He WILL deny US. It would have been very easy to say, “If hypocrites deny God, God will deny hypocrites.” But notice, a hypocrite isn’t saved. False professors and pretend Christians are already enemies of the cross and are already in a lost condition. Therefore, whether they deny Him or not, if they are pretenders THEY ARE STILL LOST. Divine denial doesn’t make them any more lost than they were before this alleged denial. In other words, if they are unconverted Christians (Christians in name only) then their denial is irrelevant. God has already denied them by decreeing that unbelievers will be lost. And this is precisely the problem with those blinded by OSAS. They’re so obsessed with injecting the poison of their false doctrine into everybody who will listen, they cannot apprehend the plain text in front of their eyes.
Of course God is faithful! Nobody on either side of the issue denies the faithfulness of God. Man can be unfaithful, man can change his mind, man can reject what he once believed, but everybody can have confidence that God remains the same. God’s not going to say one thing and then do another. Everybody can have confidence in God’s promises which are always conditioned upon faithfulness. In other words, if you’re faithful, God’s not going to change His mind and reject you in contradiction to His promise. He has every intention of finishing the work He began in every soul, but that does not imply that His promises are not conditioned upon our faithfulness. Consider what Paul said in the following chapter to the same church:
Philippians 2
14 Do everything without grumbling or arguing,
15 so that you may become blameless and pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.” Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky
16 as you hold firmly to the word of life. And then I will be able to boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor in vain.
In other words, if you are faithful, then you’ll be blameless, pure, and the children of God. If you hold firmly to the word of life, I will be able to boast in the day of Christ that my work was not in vain! Why would Paul wonder whether his work would be in vain? According to OSAS, the faithful are always faithful, they will always endure, and they will never walk away. Paul’s advice is then meaningless because what he advises always manifests as a habit of life among true believers.
Hebrews 6
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age
6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
The standard OSAS eisegesis is that the persons spoken of here are not really believers and had but a superficial but counterfeit conversion which of course overlooks the fact that it is impossible for such persons “to be brought back to repentance.” If they were never really saved, then their “repentance” was phony, by definition! So, why would we care that they couldn’t be brought back to a phony repentance? Is the penalty for never being a real believer eternal damnation before one’s life is over? If a person never truly experienced conversion, why can’t said person realize the error of his way and genuinely repent? This kind of sloppy manipulation of God’s word is characteristic of OSAS believers. If you were never truly saved, then you’re lost whether or not you “fall away” from the church. This only makes sense if somebody were genuinely enlightened, tasted (really tasted) the heavenly gift (taste and see that the Lord is good!) and “shared in the Holy Spirit” (really had it). Very clearly, these people were saved and fell away from the truth. And if they deny the foundational doctrines which brought them out of the world into the kingdom of God, it will be impossible to get them back.
As I said OSAS is one of the easiest delusions to dismantle. This is nowhere close to a close call.
LikeLike
March 3, 2021 at 8:05 pm
Scalia ………. you are hilarious and comments like yours is why ILMAO.
if you works righteous people were right the apostle Paul would’ve wrote …..
you died with Him so you should’ve lived with Him. you suffered with Him so you should’ve reigned with Him. but you denied Him so He will deny you and cast you into h e l l. but He didn’t write that.
LOL …. it’s delusional to not believe osas because to deny it is to destroy ‘mere Christianity” because it means Jesus lied and He will abandon those He accepted even when He knew they would sin.
LikeLike
March 3, 2021 at 8:09 pm
see Naz………….. their confused minds can’t understand the difference between some one that has a true/saving faith and some one that has a false/dead faith.
LikeLike
March 3, 2021 at 8:41 pm
Shorter Paul, “I just embarrassed myself by citing verses that have nothing to do with what I allege, so instead embarrassing myself further, I’ll just keep embarrassing myself by laughing like a two-year-old. That’ll make people respect me, yes, sir!”
And if you think for two seconds that you’re making a case for OSAS, you’re less intelligent than the two-year-old you’re acting like.
LikeLike
March 3, 2021 at 10:03 pm
Postscript to Post 64:
Matthew 24
11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.
I forgot to comment on this in my previous reply. Those who are in sin and those who are pretenders in the church are already “astray.” You cannot go astray from something you never had. Moreover, if these strayers were already lost, then being led by a false prophet is merely going from one form of deception to another. There is nothing remarkable about remaining in deception. So, false prophets arise and deceive people who are already lost. The most such people stand to lose is some of their money. And why are we told to “beware” of false prophets? It’s not possible for a true believer to be deceived by them so what’s the worry?
The word astray is translated from the Greek word πλανάω which, according to BDAG, means to mislead, to wander away from someone or something, to go astray from the faith, to be led into error. It is also used in 1 Tim. 6:10,
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
Again, you cannot wander from a faith you never had, and if you never really had it, then your wandering is only apparent, and you’ve moved from one form of unbelief to another. Sure, you suffer pangs and sorrows, but the lost are already in the misery of sin, so who cares if hell-bound unbelievers are deceived by the love of money? It isn’t their love of money that’s the problem; it’s their lack of genuine faith in Christ that’s the cause of their living in darkness.
This is so stark and obvious that OSAS “intellectuals” scramble to plug the hole in their dam by arguing that those who fall away, go astray, depart from the faith and grow cold are actually genuine believers who’ve had temporary setbacks. Tis true that they shouldn’t have allowed themselves to get caught up in bad things, but because they’re true believers, they’ll eventually come back to the fold. This line of argumentation enables them to tap dance around the obvious while saving themselves the embarrassment of trying to defend the indefensible. Of course the tactic doesn’t work because, as cited above, 1 John 3:8-10 tells us that it’s impossible for God’s children to practice sin, so if they do indeed practice sin, then they either were never God’s children or they have ceased to be God’s children by embracing evil. Note again:
1 John 3
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
There is no such thing as a “carnal Christian.” If you’re a child of God, you live holy. If you’re not living holy, you’re not a child of God. Thus, the argument that genuine Christians can be led astray, be deceived by false prophets, and wander from the faith while maintaining their salvation is false doctrine, root and branch.
Having nowhere to turn for biblical relief, OSAS proponents desperately attempt to save face by making biological appeals to the permanence of family relationships. The argument goes something like this:
A child cannot be unborn. Once a child, always a child. Once a son, always a son. Therefore, once saved, always saved.
This biological fact is cited as analogous to spiritual realities, but as is always the case with OSAS doctrine, it falls apart rather quickly. Before coming to Christ, whose children were we? As the twice-cited 1 John 3:8-10 tells us, those who practice sin are the children of the Devil.
John 8
44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Matthew 13
38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,
So, rather than “once a child of the Devil, always a child of the Devil,” we can rejoice that spiritual father-child relationships can come to an end. You can end your parent-child relationship with the Devil by believing the gospel, and you can end your parent-child relationship with God by rejecting the gospel. In spiritual matters, there is no such thing as “once a child, always a child,” for a genuine Christian can certainly die spiritually:
James 5
19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back,
20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
The context of James 5 makes it unmistakable that James is referring to a Christian who wanders from the truth. Once said person wanders, he is no longer considered a Christian but is rather labeled a “sinner.” And if one is successful in brining him back, he shall save the soul of said sinner “from death.”
You cannot wander from the truth if you never had it, and if you never had it, what sense does it make to bring somebody “BACK” to his previous lost condition? If he never really had it, THEN HE WAS ALWAYS A SINNER! Why bring him back to a sinful condition? And how can you save a soul from death when he was ALREADY DEAD? And how can you cover a multitude of sins when the man was already in sin?? Very clearly, then, a saint can leave righteousness and become a sinner with the sentence of death upon him. And the only remedy is repentance.
LikeLike
March 4, 2021 at 7:45 pm
Scalia……… LOL, nothing wrong with my position the problem is yours. I was a works righteousness heretic for 30 plus years and know the topic inside out. you have not even breached the wire let alone crossed the field and attacked my position. let me know when you get to the final stage of that heresy …… where you realize you are a wretched sinner and can not keep the letter of the law let alone the spirit of the law and you realize you are on the highway to hell.
see this is why ILOL …….. my position checks ALL of the same boxes as yours
(faith, law keeping, salutary/good acts, repentance, confession, ….) I just write my “salvation equation” that agrees with ALL of the biblical evidence and you don’t. I do that because I’m Christ centered and mine shows Christ Alone gets the credit and Christ Alone is my Redeemer …… ALL the glory to Him and no way I can boast. you see even if you don’t boast your equation of faith+works=salvation would allow you too. so where is the bible verse proving my equation wrong ? there isn’t one and the 2 equations are very different.
and if you say ……. faith+works=salvation is not your equation why are you arguing for it ?
not sure if it was here or the other argument I’m having about this topic but another typical story your side brings up is Jesus talking to the 2 groups. based on the story both are Christian 1 does good works the other doesn’t. the 1 that does good works are saved the other not ……… so there you go your side says that proves faith+works=salvation right ? WRONG, we keep digging ….. based on the whole bible if each group has the same type of faith
both groups should do good works. besides why did Jesus say the other group didn’t do good works ? based on other stories they would have probably been tithing/publicly giving alms to make themselves look good/playing a leading role at the congregation/etc …… ? but He doesn’t. so now if we consider the situation the real difference is not the works but the type of faith.
the group that gets saved has a true/saving faith that unites you to Jesus which saves you and produces fruit, the other doesn’t. so when interpreting the verses you say prove faith+works you ignore there is 1 group that’s not been saved yet and may be never will. that’s the group mentioned where ……. they left us because they were never part of us. osas doesn’t apply to that group because they haven’t been os. easy breezy unless you want to force a faith+works=salvation on the gospel with yourself as co-redeemer.
goes back to the main errors ………… ignoring the clear teaching of not by works means not by works & not properly dividing between a true/saving faith & a false/dead faith.
if any logical and reasonable person steps back and looks at this evidence with a open mind at a minimum they should accept the possibility we are correct and it’s …….. a true/saving faith=salvation which produces good works.
because we are NOT arguing a false/dead faith=salvation which is really the strawman argument the faith+works crowd is attacking.
LikeLike
March 4, 2021 at 11:58 pm
Paul writes:
I’ve given you plenty of Bible verses which you again steadfastly avoid. If your position were so scriptural, you wouldn’t hesitate to directly and completely engage the above arguments. You studiously avoid doing so again which is your modus operandi when you run out of material (which, given your history here, doesn’t take long). The first rule of holes is when you find yourself in one, you quit digging. Your latest post is entirely bereft of biblical reasoning and is simply a regurgitation of your talking points. You’re not fooling anybody here, Paul, except yourself.
As I’ve said multiple times now, OSAS is one of the easiest delusions to biblically dismantle. Every time you’ve feebly attempted to slap together a shred of scriptural reasoning, you’ve shown yourself foolish in the attempt. You’re not even a good OSAS debater (although being good wouldn’t help such a hopeless position). In case you haven’t heard, ignoring multiple arguments and insisting that you’re right because you say so isn’t very convincing. And pretending to laugh away the problem only makes you look infantile. Trust me, you’re not fooling anybody into thinking that you’re genuinely amused. Your lame attempts to prove your position biblically have fallen flat, so to compensate, you turn to mockery in the vain attempt to belittle something that’s bigger than you.
Your beef isn’t with me, Paul, it’s with the Bible. You’re a pristine example of an OSAS caricature. You lie and cuss without the slightest tinge of conscience which makes you appear to be running as this year’s poster boy for sloppy grace. The only sense I can make of your posts is perhaps you somehow think that by continued posting people won’t read the above arguments. Do you really think that readers will simply scroll down to your last post and think that it encapsulates the entire argument? You’re as delusional as the false doctrine you’re peddling.
Anyway, you’ve clearly failed to answer the overwhelming majority of the above arguments, and your rare, incompetent attempts at rebuttal have blown up in your face. Nonetheless, the scriptural presentation is laid out above for anybody to read. Refute it if you can, but if you continue to ignore it and scream that you’re right because you say so, you’ll convince nobody, including yourself. The fact that you’ve retreated from the Bible faster than the Red Sea before Moses clearly shows that you don’t even believe what you say. You’re just lying and cussing to save face. Hint, Paul, it has the opposite effect.
LikeLike
March 7, 2021 at 6:56 pm
Scalia ……….. LOL, it does what’s intended —– driver you deeper into your delusion. im not in conversions, that’s the Holy Spirit …… im in convictions.
LOL …… wrong again —- I gave you numerous bible verses, so have others, which you ignored & I explained why/how you were misinterpreting the bible you said that prove faith+works.
it’s hilarious not only can’t you see your error but you use the same evidence Christ’s enemies use to destroy “mere Christianity.”
for the casual reader ………. it’s not a 2 part epoxy where faith needs the catalyst of works. it’s like the newer types of substances where faith is hardened by uv light/the quickening of the Holy Spirit. all given the believer by God so we can’t boost.
don’t be tricked by the works righteousness heresy ……….. if you can’t understand the gospel of grace when explained you may be under the “strong delusion” the bible warns us about.
LikeLike
March 7, 2021 at 9:18 pm
Paul, you never provided “numerous” Scriptures. List for us the numbers of the posts wherein you actually quoted Scripture. And the ones you simply referred to without citation or quotation were ALL addressed.
I have directly and thoroughly engaged every one of your arguments and you have steadfastly run from EVERY SINGLE ONE of mine.
LikeLike
March 8, 2021 at 11:40 am
Scalia………… LOL ……… here’s the link for you again……
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Salvation-Not-By-Works
LOL ……… no you didn’t, no one has —- otherwise TR, Naz and myself would agree with you.
LOL …….. Naz is correct there are just 2 groups (wheat/tares) but regarding this topic there are 2 groups of tares —- 1 errs on the left and 1 errs on the right. so based on what you said, either your osas church erred on the left and you just left 1 heretical group and joined another. or since you are not one of us you left the truth for a lie. it’s very simple to determine if the church you left was teaching the truth —- did they believe a false/dead faith can save you meaning God didn’t claim you OR once God claimed you as one of His even though you sinned/failed to do the works He wanted you to do He didn’t abandon you …… as He promised.
LOL ……. and not to rehash because you are obviously under the “strong delusion:”
I can state that because ….. when shown the truth not only do you obstinately reject it …. you say it’s delusional to believe God won’t abandon His own. the only 2 new things you brought up I destroyed (church having their lamp stand removed/I can get the Holy Spirit to leave me if He indwelt me).
LOL ……. we proved “not by works” means just that and your side hilariously says no it doesn’t, that just means “ceremonial works” and dismiss it out right —— that’s what the delusional people do as I mentioned above. because then your side ignores that and says the works in James means law keeping and salutary/good works NOT ceremonial works. and you can’t see why ILMAO.
LOL …….. our position not only dots all of the i and crosses all of the t it’s the only thing that makes sense if you are a Christian. because if i’m wrong i’d have to accept that means …… “mere Christianity” is false otherwise i’m intellectually dishonest.
LikeLike
March 8, 2021 at 11:46 am
Scailia ………
LOL ……. that link was from post #54.
dude …… you need to pull your head out of your arse and do some solid research on why it’s salvation by Grace Alone through Faith Alone by the works of Christ Alone as laid out in the Scriptures Alone to the Glory of God Alone.
LikeLike
March 8, 2021 at 12:19 pm
And I already told you that I will not read ANY link that you offer for a couple of reasons. First, you’re either capable of debating the topic or you’re not. Clearly, since you rely on a link, you’re not capable of doing so, so I’m not going to debate somebody you’re using as a proxy. Second, since you’re clearly avoiding every argument I’ve offered above, there’s not a chance I’m going to play a debate by link game. I can fill this site up with links to websites and books too, but that’s not necessary given the fact that I’m ready, willing and able to debate the topic myself.
LikeLike
March 8, 2021 at 12:21 pm
Every argument you’ve offered here has been addressed above—every one.
LikeLike
March 8, 2021 at 2:58 pm
Wow, this thread has grown since I was last here!
“I don’t see how rejection and lack of belief are any different. I don’t believe in Hindu gods and as a result I reject them. I’ve heard of them and know what they stand for even though I can’t quote their scriptures, I know enough. You are very well acquainted with the bible so I don’t think you fall in the category of ignorance for starters. If you don’t want to call it rejection, I think that’s fine, unbelief is sufficient.”
Well, to me you can’t reject something unless you believe it exists (it sounds like what you are rejecting is not the gods that you don’t believe in, but the religions which you do believe exist). After all, there are an infinite number of things we all don’t believe exist, yet we don’t actually reject because we don’t have sufficient knowledge to make such a judgment. For instance, I don’t believe intelligent alien life has visited Earth, but I don’t reject the notion. It seems highly unlikely, but I can’t know for sure that it is impossible.
Pertinent to religion, the vast majority of atheists are what are called agnostic atheists, meaning they don’t believe gods exist but do not claim to know that they don’t exist. So that makes lack of belief and rejection two very different things.
“The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in the context it is written is attributing works of God to the devil or Satan. What it is essentially is a misappropriation of God or marring the face of God and making Him to be evil. Ultimately those that have any knowledge of God and reject or not believe in Him will eventually make Him evil so as to justify themselves.”
Ah, but don’t you think people can conclude God is evil simply by reading the Bible? I mean, I myself have found many, many passages where God either condones or commits virtually all the behaviors we ourselves use to identify evil persons: murder and genocide, animal and human sacrifice, torture, child and animal abuse, theft, slavery, rape, incest, cannibalism, betrayal and lying–not to mention manifesting characteristics we also associate with evil, such as megalomania, sociopathy and narcissism. So someone could reject God because of how he is portrayed in the Bible and not wanting to be associated with an evil monster, rather than making him out to be evil to justify themselves.
“You are correct to a point, I agree that forgiveness is up to the one doing the forgiving and he is released from the bitterness that comes with holding a grudge. However, that relationship is still damaged because the one you forgave is still hostile towards you and presumably wants nothing to with you for example.”
True. But I don’t think it matters to the person doing the forgiving what the person being forgiven thinks. For instance, a parent who forgives a child for misbehaving doesn’t require that child to accept that forgiveness. All he or she cares about is that the child behaves better in the future. And isn’t behavior the only thing that really matters to anyone?
“In terms of forgiveness with God, it’s similar but not quite the same I think. God is ready and willing to forgive all those that want His forgiveness. He wants nobody to perish but everyone to be saved. But the gospel is more than forgiveness, it’s about a relationship, a union to be forever undone and unbroken. He wants to indwell you spiritually and never leave you. For this to happen we need to recognize and acknowledge our sins for one, and secondly our need of Him.”
The problem here is divine hiddenness. A kid growing up in India or Saudi Arabia or Myanmar only learns about what he is taught. He may hear about Christianity, but his understanding of it is likely to be a caricature–much as almost no Christians in the US have more than a vague caricature of any other religion. As you stated in regards to yourself, “I’ve heard of them and know what they stand for even though I can’t quote their scriptures, I know enough.” From my own experiences traveling the world, I can tell you that that is exactly the prevailing view of the vast majority of religious people worldwide. And they are just as committed to wanting to follow the “one true” religion as is any Christian.
Yet the odds are massively stacked against them because the “one true” God remains hidden from them so perfectly they have no reason to believe any religion other than their own is the “one true” religion. Almost every religious person–yourself included, presumably–feels lucky to have been born in one of the societies that happens to believe in the right God or gods.
So if God actually wants everyone to be saved (as the Bible says multiple times)…clearly he’s doing it wrong. There are literally billions of people who will–according to the Bible–go to hell due to no fault of their own. They THINK they are following the right religion and they THINK they are doing the right things for their own salvation. They have no reason to think they are wrong and Christianity is right. If God simply made belief in him automatic (or at least provided each person with the evidence he needs to guarantee belief), everyone would at least be on the same page. At least THEN they could make an informed decision whether or not to follow God.
Do you see the problem? How can people recognize and acknowledge their sins or believe they need God when he remains so perfectly well-hidden? It’s a guaranteed recipe for the damnation of hundreds of billions of people throughout history….
“I know that you speak for yourself here to some degree and you have spent a lot of time trying to establish the position that God is unjust and even evil for condoning certain things like slavery etc…. As in the previous section, we can’t receive salvation with a picture of God like this, it won’t happen as that is clearly evident. I wish I had more time to try and explain those difficult passages where you see God acting in an unjust or evil manner. All I can say for now is that there are explanations for those events and that in opposition to that view, God is love insomuch that He came to be one of us to offer Himself and die for us so that we would be reconciled to God.”
Yeah, that remains a huge sticking point for me (and billions of others). If God is all powerful and all knowing, then literally EVERYTHING he does is optional and has to be viewed in that light. It means he doesn’t HAVE to behave the way he does, and surely he would attract countless more followers if he didn’t behave that way–or at least if he made it perfectly clear to anyone reading the Bible that there are good, justifiable reasons for an omnipotent being to cause such atrocities. “God works in mysterious ways” just doesn’t work for me, because it is a tacit acknowledgement that the evidence doesn’t matter, and that it’s more important to risk worshiping an evil god than being a moral person.
“We are not saved based on our ability to correctly interpret or understand the bible.”
How so? I’ve read over some of the arguments you, Scalia and others have been having…and clearly if one of you is right and the other is wrong, at least one of you is not going to be saved. And it’s important enough to everyone involved to argue about it in the first place. I’ve known Christians who are kind, friendly and giving, and I’ve known Christians who are cruel, hateful and stingy. If behavior matters, as some (but not all) Christians claim, then the nasty ones won’t be saved. Some believe salvation requires being born again, others say you have to be baptized, others require confession to priests, and so on, while others insist those passages are metaphorical or even optional. So it seems to me that correct interpretation isn’t just important…it’s critical.
“Who can claim that they have God all figured out ? That would be foolish I think and not very humble unless your part of a certain denomination who seem to have God in a box.”
And yet that’s what many denominations teach. They often assure their congregations are saved, even though other churches literally consider them doomed to hell.
“The central truth about Jesus Christ and His offer of salvation should be the core to any denomination. When you stray from that then it becomes non-Christian at that point. If you are a seeker of truth and God is leading you I believe a person will figure this out on their own.”
But clearly members of conflicting denominations (such as Catholics and Protestants) are seekers of truth, but God appears to be leading them in different directions.
“This is wise saying Derek and I think it has a lot of merit here. We must admit that we don’t have all the answers to everything. But faithfully seeking and believing is the journey and I believe God sees that and justifies us. There are numerous biblical accounts of those seeking truth that eventually found a person to lead them to the truth. It was their seeking that moved God to respond, I really believe that. In the end it’s not what we know but Who we know 🙂”
That last sentence: “In the end, it’s not what we know but who[m] we know.” Unfortunately, that’s true in almost any business! 😉
LikeLike
March 9, 2021 at 6:27 am
Derek,
“Pertinent to religion, the vast majority of atheists are what are called agnostic atheists, meaning they don’t believe gods exist but do not claim to know that they don’t exist. So that makes lack of belief and rejection two very different things.”
I am aware that agnosticism is prevalent among many atheists and the general population as well. I think we may be splitting hairs in terms of rejection versus unbelief. The end result is the same, you are in opposition to God whether you acknowledge His existence or not. Based on your other comments of God being evil, I can only assume that if He showed up on your door step you would reject Him at that point. Is that a fair statement ?
“True. But I don’t think it matters to the person doing the forgiving what the person being forgiven thinks. For instance, a parent who forgives a child for misbehaving doesn’t require that child to accept that forgiveness. All he or she cares about is that the child behaves better in the future. And isn’t behavior the only thing that really matters to anyone?”
Just doling out forgiveness is just a license to sin, there will be no change of behavior. Only when God transforms a person’s heart can there be true repentance and change in behavior. That said, behavior is not everything, relationship is everything because everyone will make mistakes and sin so if my connection with God is based on my performance, then I’m doomed.
“The problem here is divine hiddenness. A kid growing up in India or Saudi Arabia or Myanmar only learns about what he is taught……”
it seems like this type of discussion always goes back to some poor kid in India or China living in a mud hut with not clue about God etc… I understand the argument, and Jesus said the gospel will be preached to every corner of the world. That is happening and even places like China and India are learning about the gospel. As for the kid in the mud hut, that’s not my problem, it’s God’s problem. I don’t need to explain it because I can’t. Some things are too big for us.
I know one thing, God is just and merciful. If He has some free passes lined up who am I to argue, but I’m not going down that road. To whom much is given much is required. There are a lot of people, like yourself, that have heard of God and His offer of salvation. I can only speak to that and yes we are “lucky” or fortunate to live in a society where these things can be spoken of, at least for now until those freedoms are taken away eventually.
“Yeah, that remains a huge sticking point for me (and billions of others). If God is all powerful and all knowing, then literally EVERYTHING he does is optional and has to be viewed in that light. It means he doesn’t HAVE to behave the way he does, and surely he would attract countless more followers if he didn’t behave that way–or at least if he made it perfectly clear to anyone reading the Bible that there are good, justifiable reasons for an omnipotent being to cause such atrocities”
I think this topic deserves a post of its own. Perhaps Jason can start one. All I can say is that this is probably the biggest divide between what you and I believe, even more so than Darwinian evolution. I understand to have this view of God must be a huge stumbling block for you to get anywhere near to accepting and receiving the gospel. I hope in the future we can look at some of these scriptures more closely. The fact that you blame God for causing the atrocities of mankind is astounding to me !
“How so? I’ve read over some of the arguments you, Scalia and others have been having…and clearly if one of you is right and the other is wrong, at least one of you is not going to be saved.”
I apologize for some of the tone of those conversations. It gets nasty at times and clearly this is not a good example that we should be portraying to you. Often we say things and don’t know who’s listening, or reading in this case. Suffice to say, everyone has a lot to learn about tact and manners.
I know I’m saved but I’m not sure about Scalia … just kidding.
Both Scalia and I are saved. I can assure you of that. It’s interesting how you said “one of you is not going to be saved”. The bible never indicates that there will be a surprise on the day of judgment when we get to find out “IF” we are saved. If that was the case, can you imagine the angst that a person would be living with all their life. I would literally prefer to be an atheist at that point – seriously I would Derek.
Scalia would not agree and call me a backslider which is interesting because I didn’t know I was climbing anywhere 🙂 The notion of backsliding assumes you are climbing to reach God which is what all the other false religions teach.
Although Scalia and I disagree on the nature and permanence of salvation, we still hold to central belief in Jesus Christ in my opinion. I was in a church just like his and I can tell you that my faith was pure then as it is now. The only difference now is that my understanding has changed. That’s called spiritual growth. It’s a long story but I was violently ripped away (in a spiritual sense) from that type of church and have landed on my feet now more that 10 years later.
Salvation is not about deciphering the bible and dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s. It’s not some sort of puzzle. This is spiritual thing of the heart. To resort to legalism or form is missing the point. That’s not to say that there are some practices that certainly lead people away from truth, like the Catholic priesthood for example, yet even there you see people coming to a pure faith in Jesus. I don’t condone wrong teaching but it’s a big world and a big problem which again is not my problem. In the midst of this sorted mess you will have genuine believers and non-genuine believers. This is humanity after all and we have tendency to disorder it seems.
“But clearly members of conflicting denominations (such as Catholics and Protestants) are seekers of truth, but God appears to be leading them in different directions.”
I don’t believe God leads denominations. I believe He leads individuals. The numerous churches with their varying doctrines prove to me that God has allowed humanity the freedom to explore. Have they all got it just right ? Probably not, some more than others. You can’t put a God stamp on everything just because they have a church sign above their building. It’s not unlike your scientific approach, you need to scrutinize what churches are teaching. This can take a life time to sort out and well it should since we are trying to learn the mind of God. There is no shame in getting it wrong as long as we are seeking with a pure heart. It’s really not that complicated when you look beyond the trees and see that God wants to restore humanity to Himself, not in a robotic fashion, but in a manner in which Man chooses God freely. Only then can a genuine relationship exist.
Cheers Derek !
Naz
LikeLike
March 9, 2021 at 8:12 am
Naz writes:
Matthew 7
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
It appears from these verses that there will be a lot of people who will be surprised at the judgment — those who expected to be saved but will not be. Why plead your case of good works if you don’t expect that to gain you entrance into the kingdom? It is also interesting to note that this passage says nothing about their unbelief or their never being born again. Rather, their rejection is due to their being “workers of lawlessness.” That is not to say that unbelief is irrelevant; it simply highlights God’s focus on the kinds of things we do as opposed to what we say. They will mistakenly think that the good works they did will offset the sin in their lives.
And the fact that many will definitely be surprised at the judgment does not impeach the assurance that true believers have in their destiny. Every person knows instinctively if he is following God’s commandments with all his heart and whether he loves the Lord with all his soul. True believers will not be surprised; those deceived by God’s “strong delusion” (2 Thes. 2:11) and the conceit of their hearts in professing salvation when they indeed are not saved will be shocked in the judgment.
LikeLike
March 9, 2021 at 10:32 am
Scalia ………….. LMAO ….. you didn’t read a link with a whole bunch of bible verses, not an argument just bible verses organized in one place for your convenience, proving me correct and you wrong……. surprise, surprise, surprise.
LOL ……… no that proves you have a closed mind, want to control the discussion so you can avoid the truth. i stated my position clearly, explained your errors, why you are committing them and the real conclusion if your argument was correct.
LOL ……….. what you stated here proves you are under the “strong delusion” and most likely have a reprobate mind. because the correct position for a believer in the works righteousness heresy would be to humbly accept you agree the biblical evidence does state “not by works” but you just can’t comprehend how works aren’t a catalyst but only a by product.
LikeLike
March 9, 2021 at 11:09 am
Scalia, I have a question regarding your earlier comment about Mark 16 (see post #10). You stated the following:
“Mark 16
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
… And NO, this isn’t a spurious addition to the book of Mark.”
Based on some research a few years ago, I’d tentatively sidelined this verse as unreliable (though I believe essentiality of baptism is proven in plenty of other places). What’s your basis for including it?
LikeLike
March 9, 2021 at 11:15 am
Yes, for the third time: I will not play a battle of links with you. You’re either capable of defending your beliefs or you are not. It’s not a matter of controlling the discussion; it’s a matter of fair play. You have no warrant to demand that I follow your links when you ignore every counter argument I make. Even if I read your link and responded to it point-by-point, you’d simply ignore all the arguments and say that you’re right anyway.
Moreover, Jason has made it clear that he doesn’t want posters to get into a battle of links. This site is for discussion, not link posting. Now, if you make an argument and link to a more complete discussion, that’s fine, but to replace argument with a link is discordant with this site’s terms of service.
The few times you’ve bothered to offer a positive argument have been directly addressed without rebuttal from you. When you get around to an actual discussion, I’ll be happy to engage whatever else you offer.
LikeLike
March 9, 2021 at 11:35 am
Matthew 7
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
You misunderstood my meaning. I was trying to say that we will know we are saved in the here and now and do not need to wait until judgment day to get our verdict. There will be no surprises to true believers.
Scalia, this was in response to Derek so I don’t know why you felt the need to respond. But that’s fine.
As for false professors, sure they will be surprised, but again that is not the point of my comment to Derek.
As for the workers of lawlessness, yes, these are those that do not keep God’s commandments. However, we know that we are not under the Mosiac Law, so in the correct context, the verses below illustrate what “God’s commandments” are from a new covenant perspective.
1Jn 3:22 and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
Interestingly Matthew 7:21-23 shows how futile our works are apart from being in union with Christ in a true relationship as per the phrase “I never knew you”. Furthermore, these performers of works who like to brag about them at the judgment are further rebuked by Jesus as “workers of lawlessness” showing that apart from Jesus our righteousness is as filthy rags.
Surprise !
Naz
LikeLike
March 9, 2021 at 12:10 pm
Naz writes:
I stand corrected. We are thus in agreement that true believers will not be surprised on Judgment Day, but please note, those surprised consider themselves true believers. In their minds, they profess faith in Christ and evidence that faith by wonderful works (not necessarily restricted to the miraculous), but because they commit sin, they will be rejected. They must have somehow felt that God’s grace excused their sin. It doesn’t.
If it’s “fine,” then why comment about it? Yes, you replied to Derek, but you’ve replied to my posts to other people as well, and I never complained. In a public forum, everybody gets to respond to every post, so long as it’s on topic.
Since Christ is describing the Final Judgment, it is clear that He isn’t referring to “the Mosaic Law.” The lawlessness that pseudo Christians engage in is the transgression of the laws of Christ. And though the entirety of Christian law is rooted in and based on love, we are clearly told:
1 Corinthians 6
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
As shown above, the context of both passages (and others containing similar data) clearly shows that these passages are warnings to Christians. In Galatians 5, we are admonished to walk in the Spirit to avoid walking in the flesh. Now, either it is impossible for a Christian to walk in the flesh or Christians can indeed fulfill fleshly lusts. If the former, then the command to walk in the Spirit has as much force as “be a human being.” Unless we kill ourselves, we cannot help being human beings. The command, therefore, is nonsensical, and such an “interpretation” smacks of explaining away what Paul is clearly saying. If it’s impossible for Christians to sin, then a lot of text is wasted on statements about it. All we need to hear, then, is “only the unregenerate commit sin, but since you’re born again, no sweat.” Since you obviously don’t argue that, then the warnings are most relevant to our standing with God. If you don’t walk in the Spirit, you’ll fulfill the lusts of the flesh, and if you do so, you will not inherit God’s kingdom.
A Christian’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. If the temple is defiled, God will destroy it. It is thus possible to defile the temple which will incur God’s wrath. Paul, being prompted by God, rebuked Corinth for its sins, and that caused Corinth to repent “unto salvation” as the 2 Corinthians clearly shows. The group spoken to in Hebrews 10 is clearly and unmistakably Christian, and the warning against deliberate apostasy is destruction. The context of Hebrews 6 again clearly shows a Christian audience which also warns that apostasy is irreparable. James clearly tells us that a brother can stray from the truth, become a sinner, and have the sentence of death upon him unless he comes back (repents) unto salvation. And, of course, these are only representative of the many warnings given to Christians in the New Testament.
So, yes, loving Christ and loving one’s brother sums up the totality of a Christian’s walk with God, but it entails the whole body works which are concomitant with that love and, by definition, prohibits a whole body of works discordant with that love.
LikeLike
March 9, 2021 at 12:12 pm
“Mark 16
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
John, if I can interject. You were probably taught that the baptism that Jesus is talking about is water baptism. That is not the case. This verse is talking about being baptized or immersed with the Holy Spirit. Basically union with Christ. Every true believer is united with Christ and is one spirit with the Lord. It does not say “he who does not get baptized will not be saved”.
Luk 3:16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Further, Paul said that he was not sent to baptize. If water baptism was contingent to salvation it doesn’t make sense that Paul would not be sent to baptize. It’s non-sensical. Paul said he was sent to preach the gospel, because that’s what saves people, hearing with faith, not water baptism.
Water baptism is not contingent to salvation as you may have been taught although I would not teach or encourage a new believer to not get baptized. Why wouldn’t you after all !
Of course, once you make water baptism a condition to salvation, then further “conditions” are added such as pronouncing “in Jesus Name” which in of itself is fine of course. But in the end baptism becomes a new law with stringent requirements and we are right back into law-based living without even realizing it instead of celebrating our new birth which is what baptism represents symbolically.
Hope that helps.
Naz
LikeLike
March 9, 2021 at 12:40 pm
@John M
Sorry about overlooking your post, John. In my back-and-forth with Naz and Paul, I had missed your question. Please note, since the long ending of Mark is not the topic of this thread, and since the site administrator, Jason Dulle, does not want us to post off-topic material, I cannot get into an extended discussion here. There are other threads which discuss this, so if you’d like to talk about it further, just let me know where you’re at on this blog, and we can continue it there.
You will find a good summary in The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 and of course Dean Burgon’s impressive The Last Twelve Verses of Mark.
LikeLike
March 9, 2021 at 12:44 pm
@John M
My apologies, John, but I provided the wrong link to Burgon’s book. Here it is:
The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark
LikeLike
March 10, 2021 at 8:43 am
Scalia, thanks for the references. I shall investigate further.
LikeLike
March 10, 2021 at 12:06 pm
Scalia ……….. LMAO ……. what is playing battle links ? again with your stupidity. of course you won’t go there because that link has ALL of the bible verses proving us correct that “not by works.”
LikeLike
March 10, 2021 at 12:47 pm
Naz, well said and i admire you patience …… the ignorance and arrogance of these works righteous heretics makes me lmao. especially because they can’t see their error even when explained. i wish i heard the gospel of grace 50 yrs ago.
PTL i meet a brother in Christ that explained to me the “strong delusion” and how it applies to them. what do you see as their biggest errors ? as i stated they make several but imo the worst are ……
A. dismiss the evidence that proves “not by works” either by ignoring it or saying it just means ceremonial works ie keeping kosher, OT sabbath keeping.
or playing the silly game of saying my bible verses’ prove it’s by works.
B. not seeing the bible clearly teaches there a 2 kinds of faith which is best laid out by James. a false/dead faith with no works & therefore, the opposite a true/saving faith which has works. so in their deception they can’t see the works are a by product and not a catalyst so they depend on their works to save them and not on Jesus’ works as we do. so since they live by the Law they will die by the Law because no one but Jesus could keep not only the letter but spirit of the Law.
C. since they can’t refute the evidence which proves them wrong they play what others call the “lying retard game” by making up false scenarios like …… so if you are saved and you commit adultery by sleeping with a friends wife and have him killed to cover it up OR deny Jesus OR commit adultery with your step mother and even don’t stop are you still saved ? well of course if they use our correct meaning of “faith” which means God claimed you —- you will be saved. miss out on blessings in this life/even suffer because of consequences from your sins/lose rewards in the next life but you will be granted eternal life as God promises. if you have a false/dead faith you were never saved/claimed by God/will die in your sins and be condemned. with a possible exception —– Jesus shows them mercy at the Great White Throne Judgment because their error proves they won’t be at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
LikeLike
March 10, 2021 at 1:00 pm
Naz writes:
In support of your assertion that “is baptized” refers to Spirit baptism and not water baptism, you cite Luke 3:16, the fact that Paul appeared to de-emphasize baptism by announcing that he was not sent to baptize, and your belief that the Scriptures do not teach water baptism’s essentiality. In other words, you contend that because the word “baptize” is used in association with the infilling of the Holy Spirit and because water baptism isn’t necessary for salvation, the baptism necessary for salvation must be in the Spirit.
This argument is insufficient at best for several reasons. First, the term baptize and its variants is by far used for water baptism as opposed to Spirit or metaphoric baptisms. In fact, it is used so often, that “baptized” is the scriptural normative term unless we are told otherwise. Nowhere in Scripture is the word “baptized” used in reference to Spirit baptism without our being explicitly told that the baptism is Spirit. As an example, the word beer in everyday speech refers to an alcoholic beverage. Beer can represent a non-alcoholic beverage like root beer, but qualifying words are used to offset it from its normal usage. A person just wouldn’t say, “Naz and I went out for a beer,” unless said person intended to relay that they drank an alcoholic beverage. If another beverage was consumed, said person would say, “Naz and I went out for root beer,” or, “Naz and I went out for some near-beer.”
In addition, Mark 16 of course comes at the end of the Gospel of Mark, so the Lord’s statements are identified as part of His Great Commission. In this we can compare the Lord’s statements in other gospels:
Matthew 28
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Thus, the Apostles are specifically commanded to baptize all nations. It goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway, that the Apostles do not give the Holy Spirit to anybody. Their involvement is preaching, teaching and baptizing (in water).
Luke 24
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Here, Christ commands the Apostles to preach repentance and the remission of sins and to wait in Jerusalem until they had received the Holy Spirit. Since the Lord opened the Apostles’ understanding of the Scriptures, and since all of them were presumably present, how did Peter obey this command?
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Here, Peter conjoins repentance and baptism with the remission of sins. Thus “baptized,” in fulfillment of Christ’s command, is clearly water baptism and not Spirit baptism.
Mark 16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
So, the common elements of the commission are: Going to all the world to preach the gospel and baptizing converts.
Given the Bible’s overwhelming use of baptize and its variants as a reference to water baptism, given its common usage as a reference to water baptism without qualification, given the consistent addition of terms to offset Spirit baptism from water baptism, and given the consistency of the Great Commission accounts, the evidence is decidedly in favor of water baptism in Mark 16:16.
And this is relevant to the current topic because belief is defined by the Lord as a work (John 6:29), and the New Testament clearly defines faith as an act which is of course in accordance with the definition of a work (Ro. 10:16). Thus, water baptism is not the kind of “work” abjured by the Apostles when they taught justification by faith.
LikeLike
March 10, 2021 at 1:04 pm
“As shown above, the context of both passages (and others containing similar data) clearly shows that these passages are warnings to Christians. In Galatians 5, we are admonished to walk in the Spirit to avoid walking in the flesh. Now, either it is impossible for a Christian to walk in the flesh or Christians can indeed fulfill fleshly lusts. If the former, then the command to walk in the Spirit has as much force as “be a human being.” Unless we kill ourselves, we cannot help being human beings. The command, therefore, is nonsensical, and such an “interpretation” smacks of explaining away what Paul is clearly saying. If it’s impossible for Christians to sin, then a lot of text is wasted on statements about it. All we need to hear, then, is “only the unregenerate commit sin, but since you’re born again, no sweat.” Since you obviously don’t argue that, then the warnings are most relevant to our standing with God. If you don’t walk in the Spirit, you’ll fulfill the lusts of the flesh, and if you do so, you will not inherit God’s kingdom.”
Scalia, I owe you an exegesis of this passage and its parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Yes of course Christians can walk by the flesh, that is not in dispute.
The passage in Galatians is not a warning to Christians that they will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions,
Gal 5:21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Gal 5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.
Starting back in chapter 2, Paul is addressing faith versus works and more specifically coming against those that have come in and tried to sway the Galatians to follow the works of the law instead of faith in Christ. O foolish Galatians !
When we come to chapter 5 Paul is contrasting walking by the Spirit versus walking by the flesh. Notice in verse 17 where Paul says how the flesh opposes the Spirit “to keep you from doing the things you want to do”. This is something I tried to explain before, A Christian’s desire is to do right. We are called “slaves of righteousness” which shows God changed our desires at the new birth. We no longer want to sin and walk according to the flesh. Our new mode is one of righteousness and this is at the heart level even though sometimes we fail and miss the mark. To echo what you said in a previous post, we are characterized by righteousness, but that righteousness is not a righteousness of performing perfectly all the time, but an intrinsic righteousness given to us by God through the Holy Spirit. We are not just forgiven when we are saved but we are given a new heart. This forms our new identity in Christ as a child of God.
Paul is urging the Christian Galatians to walk by the Spirit to avoid the pitfalls of the flesh. Now the key verse that you pointed to is verse 21 which you indicated was a “warning” to Christians who “do” such things will not inherit the kingdom or “lose their salvation”. Let’s look at this verse and the following ones a little closer to get the meaning. We have already established from verse 17 that Christians “want” to walk by the Spirit by their new nature as children of God. I would hope you at least agree on that point.
In verse 21, the Greek word for “warn” used in the ESV translation is prolegō (G4302). This word can simply mean to tell, foretell or predict. It does not necessarily carry a warning in the real sense of a warning as we understand it. In the KJV for example the verse reads :
Gal 5:21 Envying’s, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
I don’t think “warn” is a good translation here and so far as I’ve seen it is only used in the ESV. This could be anecdotal but the point to take from this maybe is that sometimes the translations lead us astray regardless of which version of the bible we read.
Furthermore, the word used for “do” in the phrase “those that do such things” is prassō (G4328) which is defined as :
pras’-so; a primary verb; to “practice”, i.e. perform repeatedly or habitually (thus differing from G4160, which properly refers to a single act); by implication, to execute, accomplish, etc.; specially, to collect (dues), fare (personally):—commit, deeds, do, exact, keep, require, use arts.
Paul is characterizing the difference between those that walk by the Spirit, whose desire is also to walk by the Spirit, versus those that practice sin repeatedly and habitually walking by the flesh. The latter are not saved because they have no intrinsic desire to walk by the Spirit but are controlled alone by their base desires and are spiritually dead. Although Christians may commit some of these sins in this list, they do not “practice” them. I think Paul’s purpose is trying to make a distinction here for the purpose of contrast. The easiest way to do that is to categorize those who “practice” the works of the flesh as those that are not saved. The purpose is not to condemn Christians, but to show them how they should live as the following verses will illustrate.
Furthermore, verse 22 characterizes the fruit of the Spirit in contrast to the works of the flesh. Verse 24 and 25 are key to the context here also. In verse 24, “those who belong to Christ have (past tense) crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.” This is part of what happened at salvation when we come to repentance. We decided that we no longer want sin and were spiritually crucified with Christ. This is not something that happens every day, this was done once and finished (Romans 6:6) at salvation. We are not crucified every day. We don’t die every day.
Verse 25 again shows that we if we “live by the Spirit” then we should walk by the Spirit. In other words behave as who you are as children of God and produce the fruits you were designed to produce. This speaks of identity otherwise any person can try to will themselves to not steal, drink, fornicate etc… and inherit the kingdom of God. But we know nobody is justified by the works of the law. If nobody is justified by the works of the law then logically it follows that we cannot be condemned for not doing the works of the law ? After all, we are not under the law but under grace !
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Verse 25 does not say, walk by the Spirit so that you will be made alive in the Spirit. It does not say walk by the Spirit so that you will be saved. This is law-based thinking. God has turned this thing on its head. First he saves us, cleanses us, gives us a new heart and then he instructs us to walk as ones that live in the Spirit. Walk as new creations, as children of God. This is the main thrust of the Galatians 5 passage. This is not meant to be a warning to Christians that they will lose their salvation if they commit works of the flesh.
Regarding the 1 Corinthians 6 passage, verse 9-10 expresses the same thought. But we can’t stop reading.
Verse 11 :
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Again, this is who a Christian is. Such were some of us but this is not who we are now. It’s all about identity and once we understand our identity we can properly interpret difficult scriptures that appear to condemn us but contradict foundational gospel scriptures like Romans 8:1.
Notice how we are washed (past/present tense), we are sanctified (past/present tense) and we are justified (past/present tense). This is a complete work that cannot be undone. This is our identity. We do not need to be continually washed, sanctified and justified each day. This was all done at salvation when we were placed in Christ. Although our understanding and behavior can be continually in process as we mature from babes to adults, our standing as children of God does not change.
I also want to comment on the verses below. The interpretation that God will destroy us if we “pollute” His temple is completely wrong. It’s actually quite sadistic and greatly mares the face of God. God loves His children and will not destroy them. Again we need to look at context.
1Co 3:16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?
1Co 3:17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.
As usual we need to back up a couple of verses to get the meaning ….
1Co 3:11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Co 3:12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—
1Co 3:13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
1Co 3:14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
It speaks of our work being built on the foundation of Jesus Christ and this work will be tested by “fire” to determine what sort of work one has done. Now this can refer to a few things. Some of our works will not amount to anything in terms of building on God’s foundation such that they are dead works or fleshly works. Obviously there would be no merit to these works and these works would burn up and not last. Yet it states that the person will be saved even though his works don’t endure.
The use of the word “fire” indicates difficulty or maybe persecution and sometimes a Christian’s work can be burned up by those that oppose the message. The Christian will also suffer loss. even death, in this scenario.
Verse 16-17 clearly tells us that we are God’s temple and if anyone destroys us, God will destroy them because God’s temple is holy and we are God’s temple. This is not about us polluting ourselves with sin. This is about God exacting vengeance on those that destroy His people, His temples. This is a comfort verse for us showing the value that God places in us as His people.
These verses have absolutely nothing to do with polluting your temple with sin to the point that God will destroy you. God will not destroy His own temple !
The ending of the chapter makes it even more clear :
1Co 3:21 So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours,
1Co 3:22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours,
1Co 3:23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
Man is futile in his own wisdom and cannot amount to anything on his own apart from God. God has freely given us all things for our benefit and more than that, we belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God. Paul again reaffirms our identity as he also did earlier in this chapter when we are referred to as God’s fellow workers and God’s building. It sounds like God is on our side and doesn’t want to destroy us.
To summarize, God is not naïve. His salvation is full proof and cannot be thwarted. I have never suggested that we should live like the devil. Again, a true believer has undergone heart surgery by God and does not want to sin any longer though he will. The problem with your theology is one of degrees. You said it’s not rocket science and you’re right, it’s way harder than rocket science. How are we supposed to judge the human heart ? If you are implying that each time we sin we lose our salvation, I can’t believe you even believe that. Now, what you might say is a habitual or continual sin is what would forfeit our salvation. Again, to what degree ? How do you measure that ? So a habitual sin is more serious than a one time sin ? If so, then this is starting to sound like Catholicism with all their different classifications of sins (original sin, mortal sins, venial sins etc..). Your remedy to the one time or continual sin is repentance. Now I agree that if we sin, our next course of action should be to recognize it and just stop. Now if my cessation from committing sin A causes me to regain my salvation, how is that not a works-based salvation ? This cannot be correct theology. I am not saying the person should not repent, what I argue is that the repentance of a Christian does not bestow on him or re-attain for him eternal salvation. If it did, this would pose massive theological issues. You would need to scrap all verses in the bible which promises us eternal life, including the words of Jesus Himself where He promises that He will lose none that the Father has given him. Eternal life would need to renamed to temporary life for starters. The gospel would need to be changed to state you are forgiven for all of your sins, unless you sin. The whole thing becomes double-talk and we are left not knowing where we stand with God because there may be a secret sin that we have not repented of and surprise ! On the day of judgement we will be foiled.
Your theology does not take into account human weaknesses and lacks compassion. It more resembles the law of Moses at best with a sprinkle of Jesus for good measure. People have real struggles for a lot of different reasons because life can be hard and patterns like addiction for example are difficult to break, even when the person wants to beak them. Your theology absolutely buries a person like this and they will have no hope whatsoever. Instead of claiming God’s righteousness for themselves, they continue to see themselves as dirty worms and guess how a dirty worm will behave ? Like a dirty worm. It’s a vicious cycle with no way out because they are not forgiven unless they stop. It might be easy for you to say, but you really need to have some compassion on people from different walks of life that might not have it as easy as me and you.
Enough said. Sorry for the length.
You really don’t need to reply, I know where you stand on this. Hopefully this helps to clear up where I stand. Just pray and keep seeking the scriptures, as I will too. We don’t need to argue about this.
Naz
LikeLike
March 10, 2021 at 2:05 pm
Naz writes,
Oh, I most certainly will reply. I just don’t have time at the moment.
What continues to be odd about you, though, is your plea that we shouldn’t “argue” about this and that we should “agree to disagree,” yet you post non-stop on the matter. Every single time you get the opportunity, you inject OSAS and will keep posting until you discover that you’re firing blanks, at which point you simply drop the matter until somebody else provides an opening for you to talk about it again.
If you really want to agree to disagree, then you would have long ago dropped the matter. You regularly visit a blog hosted by a Oneness Pentecostal with a readership that is perhaps mostly in agreement with the administrator, yet you can’t stop posting your OSAS drivel like a bad twitch. You want the luxury of spewing your false doctrine without having to engage rebuttals from the likes of me. In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to evangelize this site to persuade others of your beliefs while getting upset over my challenging you on it. Not gonna happen, Naz. So long as you keep posting false doctrine, I’ll keep posting rebuttals (as long as they’re on topic, of course).
Anyway, as stated, I’m too busy at the moment, so it’ll have to wait until later.
LikeLike
March 10, 2021 at 8:44 pm
Naz, you argue that Galatians 5 “is not a warning to Christians that they will not inherit the kingdom of God,” but the basis of that claim is rather unclear to me. You argue that Paul isn’t warning Galatia; he is simply stating that the unregenerate who practice sin will not be saved and that God’s people inherently do right, though not perfectly. This implies, of course, that though Christians can and do sin, it is impossible for them to ever live in sin due to their changed natures in Christ. That’s about it. You of course elaborate on these points, but you fail to anticipate the obvious response to the first point and fail to engage the previous rebuttals to the second.
You first go to limited lengths to establish the point that προλέγω “can simply mean to tell, foretell or predict,” and that “it does not necessarily carry a warning in the real sense of warning as we understand it.” You go on to say that “warn” is by your lights only shown in the ESV and is not a good translation.
In reply, whether or not προλέγω is a foretelling or a warning (or both) they who live in sin will not be saved. Since you agree that Christians can indeed commit sin, the only question is whether a Christian can sin to the point of being lost (which you deny). But since it is impossible, according to you, for a Christian to live in sin, such “foretelling” is nonsensical. There is no purpose in instructing Christians to “walk in the Spirit” if it is impossible for them to do otherwise to the point of being lost. If they’ve been genetically rewired, then a Christian cannot fail to walk in the Spirit on a consistent basis. And to be told that unsaved people will be unsaved is also nonsensical. You write:
This isn’t exegesis at all. You’re ignoring the text altogether and explaining what you believe it ought to say rather than what it actually says. Paul instructs Christians to walk in the Spirit to prevent fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. And the reason they ought to walk in the Spirit is due to the very active fleshly nature that remains within them (vs. 17) to the point that it can prevent them from doing what they want to do. This is not at all a generic contrast between those who are saved and those who are not. I repeat, if it is impossible for Christians to live in sin, then they don’t need to be instructed to walk in the Spirit to avoid fulfilling sinful desires because it’ll NEVER happen.
So, if Paul is foretelling what will happen to sinners, it is entirely irrelevant to Galatia because they’ve been born again and can never lose their standing with God. And if you concede arguendo that a Christian can be lost by returning to a life of sin, then “foretelling” the destiny of the lost amounts to a warning whether or not one chooses to call it such. As stated above, your failure to engage the numerous rebuttals to the premise upon which you build your argument renders your conclusion a non sequitur.
As to προλέγω, though you imply that it may be a warning, you’re not completely candid with its lexical range. According to BDAG, it is used in Galatians 5:21 as a warning and uses 2 Cor. 13:2 as a corresponding example. Vine elaborates:
[ 1,,G4302, prolego ] with verbal forms as mentioned above, is translated I forewarn” and ‘I did forewarn,’ in the RV of Galatians 5:21, AV, ‘I tell (you) before’ and ‘I have told (you) in time past;’ here, however, as in 2 Corinthians 13:2; 1 Thessalonians 3:4 (See below), the RV marg., ‘plainly’ is to be preferred to ‘beforehand’ or ‘before’ (See under FORETELL); the meaning in Galatians 5:21 is not so much that Paul prophesied the result of the practice of the evils mentioned, but that he had told them before of the consequence and was now repeating his warning, as leaving no possible room for doubt or misunderstanding; in 1 Thessalonians 3:4, the subject told before was the affliction consequent upon the preaching of the Gospel; in 1 Thessalonians 4:6, ‘we forewarned,’ the warning was as to the consequences of whatsoever violates chastity.”
Moreover, since you’ve found “warn” in the ESV only, perhaps you should have looked a little harder:
NIV
21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
ASV
21 envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Amplified
21 envy, drunkenness, riotous behavior, and other things like these. I warn you beforehand, just as I did previously, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
ESV
21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Mounce Interlinear
21 envyings, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before: those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!
NASB
21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
RSV
21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
And if we include the ESV, that gives us at least eight major English translations which translate the word in question as a warning. So, what is Paul really saying to the Galatians?
Galatians 1
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel
Apparently, the Galatians’ spiritual genetics didn’t prevent them from being removed into another gospel.
7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Now, what sense can be made of these statements if it is impossible for Christians to really defect from the gospel? Why in the world would Paul go so far as to use the Apostles and the angels of heaven as examples of preaching false doctrine in order to get Galatia to understand that no matter what they did, they could never lose their salvation and could never go far into sin? Why in the world is Paul “astonished”? If OSAS is correct, upon hearing that Galatia was turning to the law, Paul should have shrugged and said, “So, what?” because Paul, as an OSAS preacher, would never despair that true Christians would go back to sin.
Galatians 4
8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.
9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years!
11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.
Whoa! I thought Christians could never turn back to sin. How can a child of God who was once a slave want to be a slave again? And why in the world would Paul despair that he may have labored for Galatia in vain? If he’s speaking to eternally secure Christians, they would never desire to be slaves again. Thus his work could never stand in jeopardy of worthlessness. Such talk is foolish if spiritual genetics saves the day every time.
Now, if he’s speaking to pretenders and hypocrites, then they are still enslaved to sin, and Paul renders himself incoherent by warning sin-slaves not to go back to sin-slavery. Why would Paul fret about his work being in vain among hypocrites? If his work produced hypocrites or false professing Christians, then there’s no point trying to get them to back away from Judaism. Rather, he needs to encourage them to become Christians by exercising genuine faith in Christ. In so doing, they would get a spiritual overhaul and become immune to Moses. This again isn’t any kind of exegesis from the OSAS camp. It rather glosses over the text in order to explain it away. In other words, don’t pay attention to what the actual text says, pay attention to what we’re saying so that the text doesn’t confuse you.
But Paul, of course, isn’t speaking to hypocrites and pretenders. He’s is speaking to genuine Christians:
Galatians 4
31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
Then notice the very next verse (the beginning of Chapter 5 — recall that there are no chapter/verse divisions in the actual epistles):
Galatians 5
1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Paul commands the Galatians not to submit again to the yoke of slavery. But since it’s apparently impossible to go back to slavery, why tell them to avoid a pit they’re not capable of falling into? If Galatia accepts circumcision, they would be SEVERED FROM CHRIST and FALLEN AWAY FROM GRACE. Note, Paul isn’t speaking to CINOs (Christians In Name Only); he is speaking (per 4:31 & 5:1) to fellow Christians who are children of the “free woman” and Christ. Very clearly, then, the notion that your spiritual DNA will prevent you from falling completely into sin is completely false, root and branch. As Paul said elsewhere:
Romans 6
16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Though the seed of God does not sin, the fleshly nature is not obliterated at conversion, nor is free will. If you choose to walk in the Spirit, fulfilling the lusts of the flesh becomes impossible. But if you choose to walk in the flesh, you will become its slave and will be severed from Christ.
And after warning—yes, warning Galatia to avoid the works of the flesh, he writes:
Galatians 5
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.
26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
Are we in broken record territory yet? Since it’s impossible for Christians to become too conceited, too provoking or too envying, and since these things are to be expected from anybody (since perfection isn’t what Christ called us to–according to OSAS), what’s the purpose of this instruction? The actual purpose is quite clear: When you become conceited, provoking and full of envy, you’re not living by the Spirit or keeping step with the Spirit. Hence, you’re living in the flesh and keeping step with the flesh which Paul reflects on elsewhere:
Romans 6
13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Paul warns the Galatians again:
Galatians 6
7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.
What are the Galatians warned not to be deceived about? Paul answers that question: Anybody who tells you that there are not eternal consequences to your choosing sin is lying to you. If you live in the flesh, you will reap corruption, but if you live in the Spirit, you will reap everlasting life. Again, this is totally nonsensical if the Galatians were unconditionally eternally secure. It’s impossible for them to sow to the flesh sufficiently to jeopardize their salvation, and their super genes will always cause them to sow to the Spirit, so why the warning? Since I cannot be deceived and since there are no eternal consequences, and since I cannot ever grow weary in well doing, Paul wasted his ink. Of course, Paul wasn’t wasting his time. The situation in Galatia was critical and the Holy Spirit prompted him to issue severe rebukes and warnings in order to avert disaster. In no sense does Paul imply the unconditional eternal security fiction.
That’s enough for one post. My next post will address Naz’s further comments on 1 Corinthians 6.
LikeLike
March 11, 2021 at 12:06 am
Naz, you attempt to reply to my comments on 1 Cor. 6 first by repeating your previous argument about identity while failing to address my proximate contextual comments relative to Chapters 5 and 6. And this of course does nothing to clarify your stance nor to undermine mine.
You do, however, attempt to blunt the force of my argument relative to defiling or destroying the temple of God by attempting to contextualize 1 Cor. 3:16-17. You aver that the work of every Christian will be tested with various results depending on the kind of work that it is, but since a Christian is built upon Christ, he will be saved regardless what happens to his work. From this, you draw the conclusion that if anybody “destroys” God’s temple, God will destroy that person (not the temple, but the person who destroys the temple). That this is a logical leap is seen if we format your argument in a more organized manner:
1) Jesus Christ is our foundation (implying that we are built upon Him).
2) What is built on the foundation (wood, hay, straw, gold, silver, etc.) will be tested.
3) Whatever survives the test will be a man’s reward.
4) Whatever doesn’t survive will be a man’s loss.
5) Therefore, whoever destroys God’s temple will be destroyed of God.
It is thus clear that 5 does not logically follow 1-4. Paul is teaching that a minister’s work is distinct from the man himself:
1 Corinthians 3
13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
And since Paul is describing a man’s work and not the man himself, except in reference to his personal salvation, there is no proximate logical connection between the work and the minister. If you had gone back a few more verses, you would have been able to avoid your exegetical error:
6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.
7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.
8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor.
9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it.
It is then clear that Paul is describing the work of the ministry. He chastises Corinth for behaving carnally in boasting about who preached to them the gospel and whom they were following. He then shows that they are merely ministers of the Lord working for a harvest. And as verse 9 clearly states, CONVERTS, or those responding to the message, are God’s field and building. Thus, the gold, silver, wood, etc. are the converts resulting from the work of the ministry. The fiery trying of faith will test everybody on the foundation. Many will be destroyed or burnt up whereas others, due to the kind of material they are, will survive. And since the “work” represents converts, the test will destroy some converts and will not destroy others. Thus, what is burnt is not the minister (who may be good but unwise in some areas of evangelism), but rather those from his field of labor who did not survive.
If Christ is our foundation, then what is built on the foundation is collectively the temple of the Lord (Eph. 2:20-22). And testing purges or refines the temple of that which is carnal. So, if OSAS is true, how is it that the destruction of the wood, hay and straw constitutes the destruction of God’s temple? If testing purges the church of those who were never really part of the church, how is that a bad thing? Though a man may suffer “loss” because he didn’t have as many as he thought he had, he is nonetheless rid of that which is corruptible. Given that, an OSAS proponent, to be consistent, would view the destruction of pretenders as a good thing.
So, Paul then addresses the saints directly and informs them that they are the temple of the Holy Spirit. And if one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person because God’s temple is holy. Now, an OSAS proponent is locked into a dilemma. Paul just stated that some things cannot be destroyed and will survive the test, so if the previously described destruction is the same as in verse 17, why would that incur God’s wrath? “Saints” that are burned were never part of the church, so they don’t qualify as “God’s temple.” There is therefore no cause for wrath if we’re discussing the same kind of destruction.
Since Paul is describing God’s holy temple, then he must be speaking of another kind of destruction. As I argued above, Thayer notes that φθείρω is “to corrupt, destroy — in the opinion of the Jews, the temple was corrupted or ‘destroyed’ when anyone defiled or in the slightest degree damaged anything in it, or if its guardians neglected their duties…” BDAG says the word means to cause harm in a physical manner, to cause deterioration of the inner life, ruin, corrupt, inflict punishment, and to violate rules. LSJ defines the word as miscarry, destroy, corrupt, bribe, entice, trap, seduce, ruin, spoil, perish, morally corrupt, etc. Vine states:
With the significance of destroying, it is used of marring a local church by leading it away from that condition of holiness of life and purity of doctrine in which it should abide, 1 Corinthians 3:17 (AV, “defile”), and of God’s retributive destruction of the offender who is guilty of this sin (id.); of the effects of the work of false and abominable teachers upon themselves, 2 Peter 2:12 (some texts have kataphtheiro; AV, “shall utterly perish”), and Jude 1:10 (AV, “corrupt themselves.” RV, marg., “are corrupted”). See DEFILE and DESTROY.
Clearly, then, both by the context and by the lexical range of the word in question, the “destruction” refers to defilement by sin which incurs the penalty of death. Also note, that “anyone” can be guilty of defiling God’s temple, from without or within. And it is with this in mind that Paul speaks of the defilement of the temple in Chapter 6:
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”
17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
So, not only is the church collectively the temple of the Lord, but our individual bodies are God’s temple. Note, Paul did NOT say, as many OSAS proponents imply, that so long as you get serviced by a prostitute once in a while, you’ll be shouting on the hills of glory. He said that he would NEVER join the members of Christ with a prostitute, for that would constitute a sin against the temple of God which of course defiles God’s temple. It is thus obvious that a person can defile God’s temple by personally committing sin, and Chapter 3 makes it equally obvious that God will destroy that person unless he repents. God did not hesitate to destroy the Old Testament temple when it became defiled; and He will certainly destroy our defiled temples if we do not repent. And, as noted previously, Corinth thankfully repented:
2 Corinthians 7
8 Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while—
9 yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.
10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.
God INTENDED to make the Corinthians sorry so that they would repent unto salvation, thus again making it very obvious that Paul wasn’t glossing over iniquity with promises of unconditional election. Indeed:
2 Corinthians 6
14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?
16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
He then commands them to come out from among the world so that God would receive them. Thus God’s reception and relations with Corinth are conditioned upon their keeping the “temple” clean from defilement.
To summarize, the work of evangelism will be tested, and those purged by the test are those converts who are removed from the church. To an OSAS believer, purging is a good thing which removes hypocrites from the body. It may be bad in the sense that they never received the gospel, but if they never received it, then they were never really part of the temple. Hence, their removal cannot constitute the temple’s destruction. Given that, any attack on an unbeliever is not an attack on the church whereas vss. 16-17 of Chapter 3 speaks of a direct attack on the true church. And since it is a direct attack, it constitutes a different kind of destruction than previously described. Fiery trial refines gold, it doesn’t destroy it. OSAS believers must insist that it is a physical attack whereas Chapter 6 in both Corinthian epistles demonstrates that it is a moral attack that anybody can be guilty of. There is thus no warrant to disconnect Chapter 3 from Chapter 6 of 1 Corinthians with respect to temple defilement.
LikeLike
March 11, 2021 at 5:36 am
“There is no purpose in instructing Christians to “walk in the Spirit” if it is impossible for them to do otherwise to the point of being lost. If they’ve been genetically rewired, then a Christian cannot fail to walk in the Spirit on a consistent basis. And to be told that unsaved people will be unsaved is also nonsensical. ”
You still don’t get my meaning ….
It is impossible for a Christian to not be “in” the Spirit but It is not impossible for a Christian to not “walk” in the Spirit. A Christian is “in” the Spirit always because Christ lives (abides) in Him and never leaves him. We are united with Christ and are one spirit with the Lord.
Paul’s plea to them to walk in the Spirit is on the basis that they are already saved. They have been crucified with Christ and their sins were forgiven for all time when they were saved.
They should walk according to who they are in Christ and not according to those that are lost who practice the works of the flesh. The works of the flesh and those that practice them are there to illustrate the contrast. Why would a Christian behave like a lost person ?
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Good behavior and conduct is important for many reasons, but good behavior and conduct will not save you or keep you saved otherwise we frustrate the grace of God. That does not minimize behavior or condone sin, but puts it in the proper theological perspective.
Naz
LikeLike
March 11, 2021 at 6:20 am
“Given the Bible’s overwhelming use of baptize and its variants as a reference to water baptism, given its common usage as a reference to water baptism without qualification, given the consistent addition of terms to offset Spirit baptism from water baptism, and given the consistency of the Great Commission accounts, the evidence is decidedly in favor of water baptism in Mark 16:16.”
You made a good argument on this. Even if I concede that Mark 16:16 refers to water baptism, it does not automatically follow that water baptism is essential for salvation although I would encourage all new converts to be baptized to follow the pattern set forth in the bible. Just because we ought to do something doesn’t make it a law. I would not even consider baptism a work per say, although you can call it that I suppose but allowing yourself to get dunked in water is not great feat in of itself if you get my meaning.
Back to the verse then, it does not say those that believe and are “not” baptized will not be saved. It only says those that don’t believe will not be saved. Obviously the key is belief or faith in Christ, that’s what saves a person. Salvation is a work of the Spirit and comes by hearing with faith. There is nothing magical about water. Baptism is symbolic and does not bestow any salvific properties. Should we do it ? Yes. It doesn’t need to be a law, it is gladly and freely done by those that are saved.
Let me tell you a story …. long ago I used to visit nursing homes with my old church and we sang dongs and preached the gospel. We preached Acts 2:38 over and over. We preached baptism in Jesus Name over and over. Finally we convinced this man that he needed to be baptized in Jesus Name to be saved because he was baptized in the titles when he was younger. It turns out the man’s medical condition prevented him from being submersed in water and the nursing home would not allow it. We protested and we pleaded with them but they would not let us baptize him in Jesus Name.
I can tell you that I spoke to this man for several months and had a multitude of conversations with him. I can tell he loved God and had faith and thanked God always for keeping him alive all these years through all his illnesses.
Are you telling me telling me this man is not saved ? I know you would, and this is the kind of thing that made me realize how wrong I was in my theology and how wrong the theology of the UPC was. Spare me your platitudes about being obedient, this man was not able and not allowed to be baptized.
Water baptism does not save.
Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Eph 1:14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
Naz
LikeLike
March 11, 2021 at 8:02 am
Naz, we’re getting close to getting off-topic. I don’t think that Jason wants us to debate water baptism, per se, in this thread. I originally cited Mark 16:16 to make a point about works and faith. I know of no major commentator who denies that said verse refers to water baptism. John merely asked for references concerning the authenticity of said passage, and to my great surprise, you jumped in and insisted that it referred to Spirit baptism. That particular point bears some relevance to the topic, but a debate about baptism itself does not.
Given that you asked me a question, I’ll reply, but I won’t go further into debating baptism (and you know good and well, given our past interaction, that I’m not at all reluctant to discuss the topic). If you want to debate that again, please pick the appropriate thread, let me know where you’re at, and I’ll be there.
Now, to your question:
To anybody reading this who is unfamiliar with my past interaction with Naz, I had repeatedly asked Naz whether a 15-year-old Muslim girl, living in Saudi Arabia, who was devout in every way, would burn in hell forever because she didn’t believe in Jesus. Naz refused to answer that question despite my repeated attempts to elicit a reply.
If memory serves me correctly, he finally grudgingly affirmed that said girl needed to believe in Jesus to be saved. But of course this provides us with an equally emotional scenario: Everybody who knew the girl would also affirm that she loved God with all her heart and was one of the kindest, sweetest persons you would ever want to meet. But all she ever heard about Christianity were caricatures from her relatives, and since there were no Christian missionaries near her, she naturally had no opportunity to become a Christian. At 15, she gets killed in a car accident. ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT THIS GIRL WAS NOT SAVED?? Spare me your platitudes about faith in Christ. This girl had no real opportunity to believe in Jesus and was prevented by the circumstances of life from ever becoming a Christian.
So, based on our own sense of fairness and righteousness, we can further set aside all the Scriptures which teach that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. Because, after all, our experience with the 15-year-old tells us that “this is the kind of thing that made me realize how wrong I was in my theology and how wrong the theology of [Christianity] was.” And stuff like this is partly why a lot of people have either left Christianity or have remained Christian without insisting that everybody should become a Christian to be saved.
The obvious mistake you’re making is you’re basing your theology on emotion over the text. If the text does not teach baptism’s essentiality, then it’s not essential no matter how much we want it to be. And if the text teaches its essentiality, then it’s essential not matter how much we don’t want it to be. You would of course protest that your position is not emotion-based, but if that were the case, then you’d not even mention it. All groups can provide emotional circumstances as the day is long. If the Bible is God’s word, then your (and my) appeal to emotion is irrelevant.
LikeLike
March 11, 2021 at 8:05 am
Naz writes,
It’s irrelevant to the point. You’re reading into the letter to the Galatians things that Paul didn’t write, and you’re performing your typical bob-and-weave, hit-and-turn style of argumentation.
LikeLike
March 11, 2021 at 2:27 pm
Naz…… well said. water baptism is just an outward sign of your YES to Jesus. Augustine and those that follow his error, believing it is a requirement, end up going way off course and coming up with silly doctrines like limbo —- which PTL those silly roman catholics even backed away from.
Jesus died for us so surely He could also be baptized for us even if it was req’d. the really baptism which does save you (OS) is being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
March 11, 2021 at 5:47 pm
“if you says yes to Jesus and Jesus says yes to you congratulations your a member of His Church and saved ……… He won’t abandon you.”
If salvation can’t be lost, then that would explain why there are so many Christians in this world who behave badly, attacking other people (even other Christians) in both small ways and large, and even overrepresenting non-believers in prison populations. If you don’t even have to try to be a good, decent person once you’ve accepted your “get out of hell free card,” you’re going to get a lot of bad people gravitating toward Christianity–especially people who are authoritarian, discriminatory and petty. That to me seems a fatal flaw in the religion that purports to encourage good behavior.
“hilariously many Christians believe they have to earn the free gift of eternal life”
I don’t think that’s hilarious. I think that’s the most rational position to take. If the objective is to have people behave and do good, what better way is there than to reward good behavior and punish bad? That’s why that’s the central governing principle of pretty much every successful legal system in the world.
However, if the objective is just to essentially gain “made man” status (like a privileged mafioso), then I suppose the once-saved-always-saved version of Christianity works. But that doesn’t bode well for the kind of people who will eventually populate heaven. If someone like Hitler can commit atrocities his whole life, only to accept salvation just before he dies and thus be saved, while someone like Gandhi can do good acts his whole life, only to die unsaved and go to hell…I would say that system is fundamentally unjust. It makes the religion far less appealing to those who hope for ultimate justice in this world.
LikeLike
March 11, 2021 at 5:52 pm
Naz writes:
How can I not “get” your meaning when I stated it very clearly? In Post 94, the very first paragraph states:
This implies, of course, that though Christians can and do sin, it is impossible for them to ever live in sin due to their changed natures in Christ.
A couple of paragraphs later, I write:
Since you agree that Christians can indeed commit sin, the only question is whether a Christian can sin to the point of being lost (which you deny).
And then I write:
There is no purpose in instructing Christians to “walk in the Spirit” if it is impossible for them to do otherwise to the point of being lost. If they’ve been genetically rewired, then a Christian cannot fail to walk in the Spirit on a consistent basis.
I thus clearly state that your position acknowledges that Christians can sin and thus fail to walk in the Spirit on occasion. Nonetheless, Christians cannot fail to walk in the Spirit on a consistent basis because if one is walking in the flesh, one is sinning, and you’ve already affirmed that Christians are unable to practice sin. It then follows that Christians are hard-wired to consistently walk in the Spirit, occasional bumps notwithstanding.
So, my statement that there is no purpose in instructing Christians to walk in the Spirit if it is impossible for them to do otherwise to the point of being lost accurately describes the situation. I “got” your meaning very clearly.
LikeLike
March 11, 2021 at 8:38 pm
LOL …………. correct —– if Jesus claims you as His own as per the biblical example of His Church=His Bride ie. marriage, then your salvation is assured. just as the apostle Paul clearly teaches by the man that sins with his step mother. same goes for other biblical people that committed serious sins that God didn’t abandon …….. that because God is not a liar, He will not abandon His own.
it’s hilarious you works righteous heretics don’t get it —– if the bible has a verse which you people say means belief+works that’s no problem for us because we’ve proved the belief that saves produces works. but the bible verses that just say believe/call on Jesus and you’ll be saved destroys your argument and proves us correct. that’s because if works are required there can’t be a verse that just says believe.
LikeLike
March 11, 2021 at 9:03 pm
would a Christian that has a true/saving faith wantonly sin ? LOL ……. Shouldn’t, that’s the whole point of James and the Holy Spirit will convict you even if you did if you are a child of God.
would a Christian that has a false/dead faith wantonly sin ? LOL …… Very possible, that’s the turn to the left heresy of faith alone. the turn to the right heresy is works righteousness.
LOL ……….. those that oppose “not by works” are usually ignorant of the meaning of that phrase and misunderstand that it’s not about works it’s about the type of faith you possess. because it’s ALL about what Jesus did not what you do. that’s why works righteousness heretics have to play the “lying retard game.”
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 12:49 am
Naz quotes Eph. 1:13-14 in Post 97 but without comment. He apparently believes that said verses are self-explanatory. Given his past comments, he evidently feels that the sealing of Christians is permanent and can never be broken. But as this thread’s debate has demonstrated beyond ambiguity, the seal can most definitely be broken. Time and again, the Bible emphatically states that Christians can revert to a life of sin and be lost or are warned against reverting to sin and being lost. Anybody following this debate can clearly see that. And until Naz or anybody in agreement with him can adequately address the substantive objections above, their statements and citations collapse into irrelevance.
Naz and others have convinced themselves that certain guarantees in Scripture are so inviolable as to render every biblical statement to the contrary an apparent inconsistency (e.g. Heb. 6 & 10, I Cor. 15:1-4, Gal. 5, etc.). They attempt to harmonize the apparent inconsistencies by either attributing the contrary passages to phony Christians or to outright sinners who make no pretense at living for God. As we’ve seen, the context of every passage clearly shows otherwise. That of course indicates that there is something wrong with the OSAS premise. When the Bible so clearly and forcefully contradicts one’s conclusion, honesty directs us to re-examine our template. Further attempts to manipulate passages which contradict our view is rank dishonesty and bears no relevance to principled exegesis. But we’ve not seen an honest assessment of the overwhelming testimony of the New Testament. When confronted with arguments they cannot handle, they simply ignore them and repeat themselves. Is that honest? Of course not.
When we’re told to “agree to disagree” and “not to argue” over the topic, but the other party continues to argue and doesn’t agree to disagree, something is clearly askew. The obvious message is we’re being told to shut up so they can continue their evangelistic efforts without getting sidetracked by what the Bible actually says. The motive behind the citation of the above passage follows a familiar pattern. From the same book of Ephesians:
Ephesians 5
2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
So, after the wonderful statements regarding our sealing and justification by faith, we get the above admonishment. They are not to allow ANY uncleanness to be ONCE named among them (because saints don’t behave that way). That of course implies that saints could indeed commit fornication, uncleanness and covetousness, etc.
Now, let’s do a little review. According to what we’ve heard here from the OSAS crowd, God’s people do indeed live holy because their nature has changed. It is thus impossible for a saint to live in sin or to practice sin. And if a Christian happens to slip up now and then, that could never threaten said person’s salvation. And since sin will be infrequent due to holiness characterizing a Christian’s life, sin is merely an aberration that’s indicative of our fallibility but not indicative of our standing with God.
Given that, Paul’s admonishment makes no sense. Why should the matters he raises “not be once named” among Ephesus? Is it because it might hinder their witness to unsaved Ephesians? Is it because there is no lasting joy in sin, it should be avoided like one avoids playing among nettles? Of course, Paul says none of that. He admonishes them and reminds them of what they already know: Nobody who gives themselves to those things has any inheritance in God’s kingdom. Then Paul warns them against allowing any man to deceive them with empty words. Deceive them about what?? Clearly, the deception is the same as other admonishments against deception throughout the New Testament. They are warned against believing that you can live that way and be saved. Don’t give yourselves to these things because God’s wrath will be upon disobedient children. BE NOT YE THEREFORE PARTAKERS WITH THEM. In other words, if you do what they do, you will suffer what they suffer. But if God’s “genuine” children cannot ever adopt that lifestyle, then the admonishment is empty and nonsensical. Why instruct people to avoid a pit that’s impossible for them to fall in? The answer is obvious. Christians can most certainly revert to a sinful lifestyle and incur the wrath of God. Consequently, they should never allow themselves to be deluded into thinking that they can bypass holiness and be saved.
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 6:47 am
“admonishment ”
We live on planet earth, our actions, good or bad have consequences. Sinful behavior causes pain, hurt and nothing good comes from it regardless of who you are, Christian or not. As believers we now have a better reason to avoid these things and not do them – this is not who we are any longer. It is not our identity. We are no longer labelled as whoremongers, idolaters, unclean etc,,, we are labelled as children of God. This never changes.
The admonishment of Christians by Paul is not meant to be a threat to their eternal salvation. God does not hold salvation as a carrot for us to chase.
Christians who do these things bring shame to themselves and to the church and ruins their witness apart from causing personal pain to their own lives. This is the purpose of the admonishment. Our conduct on planet earth matters.
“For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:”
You still don’t get it … I keep repeating the same thing because your ears are dull of hearing. Look at the verse above :
“BUT NOW YOU ARE LIGHT IN THE LORD”.
Paul admonishes them but always closes with a statement of identity. If you are looking for admonishments that threaten your salvation, go to the book of Deuteronomy or Leviticus. In the Book of the Law you will surely find what you’re looking for if you want to be under the Law.
You have it backwards, you don’t do righteousness to become righteous. God makes you righteous first, which frees you to behave righteously. That’s the difference between the gospel and religion, or grace versus law.
Naz
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 7:45 am
So, Naz doesn’t agree to disagree and doesn’t stop arguing! I guess this proves that his advice is a one-way street.
Really, Naz. Of all the things argued, you camp out on the word “astonish”? I guess this means that you’re either skimming my posts or you really have reading comprehension problems. This is exactly what I mean by ignoring the text and replacing it with your philosophy. Instead of following the text, you inject reasons Paul never used in those contexts to save your false teaching. It is thus clear that you have no interest whatsoever in what the text actually says. You’re simply attempting to cleverly warp it to fit your beliefs.
Now, with respect to Paul’s astonishment, let’s refresh our memory:
Galatians 1
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel…
Paul wasn’t astonished because Galatia was being a bad witness. He wasn’t astonished because they were causing “pain.” He was astonished because they were DESERTING God! And he further warned them that if they accepted circumcision, they were SEVERED FROM CHRIST. If I were an OSAS advocate, I’d advise Naz to find something else to do because this is simply embarrassing. Somebody this sloppy with the text has no business discussing it.
And the “now are ye light in the Lord” is in Ephesians (5:8), not Galatians, but why bother with context when you’re pushing false doctrine? And even if Paul had said that to the Galatians, they were still an active church and had not yet given themselves totally to sin. As Christians, they are still the light of the world even if many of them weren’t the best examples they should be. That does not and cannot negate the dire warnings Paul gave them of the consequences of their behavior.
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 8:03 am
Mea culpa. I had misread Naz’s “admonishment” as “astonishment.” So, I apologize to Naz for the error. It doesn’t change the substance of my analysis, but Naz clearly wasn’t mixing the messages to Galatia and Ephesus.
Now, with respect to “admonishment,” the Ephesians clearly weren’t engaging in the matters Paul raised. He was simply warning them against that kind of conduct. So, they had done nothing to tarnish their testimony to their community. Thus, Paul’s “now are ye light in the Lord” has no bearing on the severity of his warning nor on its unintelligibility if they were eternally secure.
Again, Paul’s direct warning against committing those sins even “once” was due to the fact that people who lives that way will not inherit God’s kingdom. He further warns them not to be deceived into thinking that they will avoid God’s wrath if they live that way. This is again typical of the modus operandi of OSAS teachers: Ignore the plain teaching of the text and repeat yourself. It’s not a matter of our “not getting it.” We get what Naz is saying, and Naz can of course believe anything he wants. It’s just that the Bible has nothing to do with it.
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 8:09 am
And Naz offers reasons for Paul’s “admonishment” what was addressed in the previous post. To repeat one’s already known position without engaging the objection renders vacuous the repetition:
Given that, Paul’s admonishment makes no sense. Why should the matters he raises “not be once named” among Ephesus? Is it because it might hinder their witness to unsaved Ephesians? Is it because there is no lasting joy in sin, it should be avoided like one avoids playing among nettles? Of course, Paul says none of that. He admonishes them and reminds them of what they already know: Nobody who gives themselves to those things has any inheritance in God’s kingdom. Then Paul warns them against allowing any man to deceive them with empty words. Deceive them about what?? Clearly, the deception is the same as other admonishments against deception throughout the New Testament. They are warned against believing that you can live that way and be saved. Don’t give yourselves to these things because God’s wrath will be upon disobedient children. BE NOT YE THEREFORE PARTAKERS WITH THEM. In other words, if you do what they do, you will suffer what they suffer. But if God’s “genuine” children cannot ever adopt that lifestyle, then the admonishment is empty and nonsensical. Why instruct people to avoid a pit that’s impossible for them to fall in? The answer is obvious. Christians can most certainly revert to a sinful lifestyle and incur the wrath of God. Consequently, they should never allow themselves to be deluded into thinking that they can bypass holiness and be saved.
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 8:15 am
Scalia, you are totally wrong and you’ve been drinking the UPC lemonade for far too many years …
In your theology there is not a single soul who will be saved .. .ever. Spare me the “‘its not rocket science” comment. If you think that you can so perfectly manage your behavior as to merit eternal life then you really are delusion as Paul Vander Vort said.
You will always be left wanting and left to repent and ask for forgiveness every Sunday and rededicate your life over and over and over again as you march to the alter for another crying session to repent of your sins. I say again, are you not exhausted yet ? Or have you fooled yourself into thinking you are righteous because you don’t commit the sins on Paul’s list ?
Just by the comments on this site alone, you have probably lost your salvation several hundred times over the years, yet there is no repentance. You still project the rudeness and arrogance that you displayed in many of our infamous debates years ago. So based on your own theology you condemn yourself !
Scalia, my foe and friend, aren’t you exhausted yet ?
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Naz
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 8:23 am
And Naz continues to ignore his advice to agree to disagree and continues to argue!
Listen, Naz. This is a site run by a person who believes that the Bible is the word of God and that its teachings are infallible. Given that, it is highly likely that the vast majority of his readers believe the same thing. And that of course means that statements made without biblical warrant will be ignored as the subjective opinion of somebody who really doesn’t believe biblical teaching.
There’s a ton of sound, biblical objections offered here, but you’ve chosen, as usual, to ignore almost all of them. You selectively pick some things that you thought were “gotchas,” but they blew up in your face. You thus haven’t even come close to proving your case biblically. You can whine about me as the day is long, but at the end of the day, we’re going to follow the Bible.
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 8:27 am
By the way, Naz, I am not in the UPC nor have I ever been a member of the UPC.
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 8:54 am
Following the bible is not the issue here, it’s what it means that’s important.
Just to be clear, when I mention the UPC, my comments are not directed at members, but the organization and their doctrines of which I was intimately a part of and I know what I’m talking about from experience.
I didn’t know that you are not or were previously part of the UPC – colpa mia. In that case, then we really have a pandemic on our hands ..
Naz
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 9:07 am
Naz writes:
You cannot really follow the Bible unless; you know what it means. So, the bottom line remains: Your views will be ignored by Bible-believers unless you can make a biblical case for your position. You haven’t, so far.
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 10:05 am
I have clearly made a biblical case for my position. My views are not ignored and are accepted by many bible believing Christians.
The bottom line is the interpretation of said scriptures.
We can keep going if you want … I got all day …
Naz
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 10:40 am
And Naz keeps arguing! So, were you lying when you wanted to agree to disagree and to stop arguing? Evidently so. With every post, you confirm that you just wanted me to shut up so YOU could continue to disagree and and argue. And as I told you previously, when you do it here, I’ll call you on it.
I wasn’t referring to believers world-wide, and you know it. Now, if your continued posting is with the intent of having the last word or being the last person to post on this thread, just say so and I’ll be happy to leave it there, unless you offer more faux rebuttals. I’ll definitely reply to those.
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 5:49 pm
“Derek, I have tried in previous posts to explain the immensity of what happens to a person at his core when he comes to a true faith in Jesus. It appears that the “born again” experience has been discounted here. I don’t mean this experience to mean a feeling or a euphoria as it is so misrepresented in some churches. I’m talking about a true repentance and 180 towards God.”
Naz, I have known many former Christians, and virtually ALL of them claim to have felt the same depth of faith you describe. But that didn’t stop any of them from losing their faith or moving on to another faith that makes more sense to them. The ones who felt the calling so deeply they became clergy themselves and spent decades preaching and studying the Bible, Christian history and even ancient Greek and Hebrew are the most unfortunate–since the more they learned and the more they understood, the more they realized how profoundly different and untenable early Christianity is from what is preached today. As Isaac Asimov noted, “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” And when these clergy finally realized they were living a lie and left their vocation, they were left with a very limited skillset with which to pick up the pieces of their lives. And yet, in every single case I’ve seen, they feel much happier now than they did when they were Christians.
One could claim that all these former clergy weren’t “real” Christians, but that runs smack into the “No True Scotsman” fallacy: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/No-True-Scotsman. THEY clearly believed they were.
“In the end, everyone that names the name of Christ should be careful to maintain good works. Whether such a person is truly saved or playing church is really not up to us to judge, that’s God’s job and He’s the only one that really knows anyway.”
But the problem I see is that once you believe that once saved, always saved doctrine, it brings in a whole host of problems for Christianity. It gives people theological justification to commit atrocities, such as this woman who tried to hire an assassin to kill her former mother-in-law, then just ask God for forgiveness: https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2021/03/10/leigh-ann-bauman-lake-ozarks/. This objectively makes the world worse for people like me, who want to live in a world where everyone is accountable for their own actions and there is no “get out of jail (hell) free card.”
LikeLike
March 12, 2021 at 5:53 pm
LMAO …………. how come you works righteous heretics can’t understand ? the only reason has to be you are under the “strong delusion.” even the cre cre roman catholics admit ….. ultimately we are saved by grace. which every sane person knows means “not by works” as all the biblical evidence proves.
it’s so simple — faith alone doesn’t mean faith only. a true/saving faith produces good works but since the bible clearly states salvation is “not by works” the works are only present because you have the correct type of faith.
LOL …….. if it was “by works” God would have to grant eternal life to anyone that meet the criterion of good works whatever that is …… and i can say that because there’s no amount of works given in the bible except perfection which only Jesus could/did obtain.
LikeLike
March 13, 2021 at 9:00 am
“But the problem I see is that once you believe that once saved, always saved doctrine, it brings in a whole host of problems for Christianity. It gives people theological justification to commit atrocities, such as this woman who tried to hire an assassin to kill her former mother-in-law, then just ask God for forgiveness: https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2021/03/10/leigh-ann-bauman-lake-ozarks/. This objectively makes the world worse for people like me, who want to live in a world where everyone is accountable for their own actions and there is no “get out of jail (hell) free card.”
Derek, there is a difference between “using” Christianity to justify yourself and genuine human weakness. To commit some atrocity knowing you can just ask God for forgiveness shows this person is just using Christ as a license to sin. Like Pope Augustine, he waited until his death bed to get baptized so he could get all his sins forgiven and secure his salvation. These types of people are not genuine Christians and are using Christianity as a loop hole to justify themselves.
On the other hand, you have genuine believers that have human weaknesses and struggles that they battle to overcome every day. I listen to Christian talk radio and I can[‘t tell you how many people call in asking for help with a struggle for some type of sexual sin or relationship issue with their spouse. These people are not happy and they don’t want to commit these sins and are asking for ways out. A person that is committing a sin and does not want to is good sign that said person is a genuine believer, otherwise there would be no struggle at all. So it’s not the struggle alone but the intent of the heart that is the real issue.
As for judging who is a true believer and who is not, that’s God’s job not ours. We need to be careful to judge prematurely without knowing all the facts.
2 Timothy 2:19 But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his ….
Regarding “atrocities”, we always like to look at people like Hitler and his counterpart I suppose, Ghandi, as shining examples of bad versus good. In this we need to be careful as we go down the road of self righteousness. A good number of those who penned the scriptures were not shining examples of good if you look at their track record.
The apostle Paul persecuted Christians and consented to their deaths before his conversion. We know Paul became perhaps the greatest of all the apostles in terms of his missionary work and reaching the Gentiles with the gospel.
King David sent a man into battle to get killed so he could take the man’s wife. David is known for a man after God’s heart and wrote the majority of the Psalms which is song and worship book to God.
We tend to justify ourselves and think we doing are pretty good when we look at those like Hitler. I can hazard a guess and say none of us have murdered another person. We look at the degree and judge that the punishment should fit the crime and rightly so, However, when dealing with the question of eternity, we cannot look at the degree of our sins to determine our salvation because our salvation is not based on the degree of our sins or our overall performance. You may think this is not fair or is a bad system that can be manipulated, but it is the only system that gives a chance because every person is born in a spiritually dead condition without Christ.
We don’t need behavior improvement/reform lessons , we need the life of Christ living in us. That is what saves us. In light of a perfect and Holy God, we all fall short, not just Hitler and Stalin. Ghandi falls short too. And so do you and I. Nobody is going to brag in front of Almighty God about their morals and good works. Is it fair ? Maybe not, but it’s God’s way of levelling the playing field.
See the parable of the vineyard worker in Matthew 20:1-16. All the workers received the same wages no matter what time of day they started. Even the guy who worked 1 hour received the same wages as the guy who worked all day. This is God’s way. He turns our sense of justice on it’s head.
Cheers !
Naz
LikeLike
March 13, 2021 at 1:35 pm
LOL ………. you have to be delusional to research these verses and still believe in your works righteousness heresy.
“Most Relevant Verses
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Galatians 2:21
Verse Concepts
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”
Romans 8:3
Verse Concepts
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
Romans 9:16
Verse Concepts
So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
Romans 11:6
Verse Concepts
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
Galatians 5:2
Verse Concepts
Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
Galatians 5:4
Verse Concepts
You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Acts 13:39
Verse Concepts
and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.
Romans 3:20-30
because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;read more.
Romans 4:1-7
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”read more.
Romans 9:31-32
but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
1 Corinthians 13:1-3
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
Galatians 2:16
Verse Concepts
nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Galatians 3:10-12
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.”
Galatians 3:21
Verse Concepts
Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
Galatians 4:9-11
But 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? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.
Galatians 5:6
Verse Concepts
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
Galatians 6:15
Verse Concepts
For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
Philippians 3:3-9
for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;read more.
Colossians 2:20-23
If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?read more.
2 Timothy 1:9
Verse Concepts
who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,
Titus 3:4-5
But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
Hebrews 4:3-10
For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
“As I swore in My wrath,
They shall not enter My rest,”
although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; and again in this passage, “They shall not enter My rest.”read more.
Hebrews 6:1-2
Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.
James 2:10-11
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
Romans 3:20
Verse Concepts
because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
Luke 18:9-14
And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.read more.
Matthew 5:20
Verse Concepts
“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Psalm 49:7-8
No man can by any means redeem his brother
Or give to God a ransom for him—
For the redemption of his soul is costly,
And he should cease trying forever—
Psalm 127:1-2
A Song of Ascents, of Solomon.
Unless the Lord builds the house,
They labor in vain who build it;
Unless the Lord guards the city,
The watchman keeps awake in vain.
It is vain for you to rise up early,
To retire late,
To eat the bread of painful labors;
For He gives to His beloved even in his sleep.
Isaiah 64:6
Verse Concepts
For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
Ezekiel 7:19
Verse Concepts
They will fling their silver into the streets and their gold will become an abhorrent thing; their silver and their gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord. They cannot satisfy their appetite nor can they fill their stomachs, for their iniquity has become an occasion of stumbling.
Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Salvation-Not-By-Works“
LikeLike
March 13, 2021 at 10:03 pm
@Paul the Poste,
Jason very clearly stated that he doesn’t want us to fill our posts with nothing but verses. Verse citation is fine so long as you’re commenting on the verses, but posts with bare quotations are discordant with the discussion aspect of this blog. Nonetheless, I will reply to each and every citation:
1) Eph. 2:8-9, As stated numerous times above, Jesus DEFINES faith as a work (John 6:29). So, while we are not saved by “works,” this cannot, by definition, be works, per se, but a particular kind of work that we’re not saved by. This naturally follows the Lord’s definition of faith. If faith is a work and if we’re told that we’re not saved by works, then either the Bible contradicts itself or the works that are abjured are a different kind of work.
2) Galatians 2:21, The law Paul is referring to is the law of Moses. Nobody on either side of the fence disputes that.
3) Romans 8:3, Ditto.
4) Romans 9:16, This introduces unconditional election. If memory serves me correctly, Paul is a Calvinist, so there is no salvific free will in his system. Since that, per se, isn’t the topic of this thread, and since a rebuttal would launch us into a different direction, I can concede the point arguendo and say that this was addressed above. Even if we are robots with no free will whatsoever, we’re still doing something. I gave the robot example above which states that the free gift of oil from the robot maker nonetheless requires the maker to program the robot to pick up the oil and oil himself. So, even in the absence of free will, the robot is still doing something! Only if God saves a person regardless of belief or action can you truly say that salvation is 100% without any action on man’s part (except, I guess, to exist, but even then our existence is dependent on God from moment-to-moment). That of course means that God saves you whether you’re an atheist, a Buddhist or a head hunter in the Congo. Upon death or while you’re mowing the lawn, you get teleported to heaven without doing anything or believing anything whatsoever. If you’re required to believe, according to Jesus, you’re working, even if God programmed you to do it.
5) Romans 11:6, See #1 above.
6) Galatians 5:2, Paul is speaking to genuine Christians. His entire epistle is a rebuke of many in the church at Galatia for wanting to revert to the law. As I argued above, this clearly shows that salvation can be lost if one rejects the gospel in favor of a false religious system (which of course is sinful).
7) Galatians 5:4, you cannot be “severed” from Christ if you were never part of Him. As shown above, Paul isn’t talking to phony Christians; he is speaking to genuine, born again believers, and he clearly tells them that if they adopt circumcision, they will be severed (cut away) from Christ and FALLEN FROM GRACE. You cannot fall from grace if you never had it.
8) Acts 13:39, See #’s 2 & 3 above.
9) Romans 3:20-30, Ditto.
10) Romans 4:1-7, See #1 above.
11) Romans 9:31-32, See #’s 2 & 3 above.
12) 1 Corinthians 13, Huh?? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY argues that what we do for God should be empty of faith.
13) Galatians 2:16, See #’s 2 & 3 above.
14) Galatians 3:10-12, See #’s 2 & 3 above.
15) Galatians 3:21, See #’s 2 & 3 above.
16) Galatians 4:9-11, See #’s 2 & 3 above. I remind you that Paul is speaking to genuine Christians. Why would he despair that his labor among them would be in vain if they were eternally secure? How could a genuine Christian ever want to return to bondage? This contradicts in toto everything Paul the Poster has been saying about the character of holiness in Christians. Since the perseverance of the saints is foundational with Calvinism, this passage clearly shows that genuine Christians are capable to rejecting the gospel in favor of a false system and be lost (else the Apostle Paul would not worry about his labor being in vain). Your labor CANNOT be in vain if your fruit is eternally secure. But since Paul the Poster lies and cusses routinely, he must be subconsciously trying to assuage his guilty conscience.
17) Galatians 5:6, See #’s 2 & 3 above.
18) Galatians 6:15, Ditto.
19) Philippians 3:3-9, Ditto.
20) Colossians 2:20-23, Ditto.
21) 2 Timothy 1:9, See #’s 1 and 4 above.
22) Titus 3:4-5, See #’s 1 and 4 above, but also please notice Acts 5:32 – “And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” I believe all Christians will agree that receiving the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary for salvation, but here we’re clearly told that obedience is the prerequisite of receiving God’s Spirit. God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him.
23) Hebrews 4:3-10, See #1 above.
24) Hebrews 6:1-2, I have not the slightest idea what Paul the Poster is trying to prove here.
25) James 2:10-11, See #’s 2 and 3 above. But also note what James says at the end of the epistle:
James 5
19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back,
20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
A true believer can wander from the truth (you cannot wander from the truth if you never had it), and you cannot be brought back to the truth if you never had it in the first place. And if said person never had it, why would anybody be interested in bring him “BACK” to where he was before (since he’d only be “restored” to a lost condition)? And note again that said person, while straying from the truth, is called a “sinner” and not a “saint.”
26) Romans 3:20, This is a repetition of #9.
27) Luke 18:9-14, Nobody disputes this, so it’s not relevant to the subject.
28) Matthew 5:20, See #’s 2 & 3 above.
29) Psalm 49:7-8, See #27 above.
30) Psalm 127:1-2, See #27 above.
31) Isaiah 64:6, See #27 above.
32) Ezekiel 7:19, See #27 above.
Since Paul the Poster offered the above verses without commentary, we are left to wonder how he intended to use each verse. It is clear that much of what he offers is irrelevant to the issues discussed above or has been addressed above without rebuttal from Paul. Moreover, several cited passages actually speak against the very thing he appears to be trying to argue. Curious indeed.
LikeLike
March 14, 2021 at 9:33 pm
Scalia ……….. lmao —– there’s no need for commentary for the verses i posted. they not only prove it’s “not by works” they prove it can’t be “by works” and they warn against saying it’s “by works.” only a person under the “strong delusion” like you can’t see it.
LikeLike
March 14, 2021 at 10:00 pm
LOL ………… poor Scalia you don’t even understand your position. you are using the oldest silly argument ever —- the Law of Moses included the 10 commandments. based on ALL of the verses in context it can’t be just the ceremonial law …… we gentile converts were never bound to those laws & His Church didn’t bind us to them in Acts 15 either. Jesus, Paul & James are talking about the same “works” which also proves you argument silly.
LOL ……….. faith isn’t a work, it’s a gift from God ….. either you have it or you don’t. it’s obvious you are under the “strong delusion” or at a minimum you’d admit what you are really saying —– salvation is earned NOT a gift. but all the sane people know why you and the other work righteous heretics don’t do that …. because the bible is clear we are saved by grace via the completed work of Jesus Christ and not by our works.
LOL …….. that’s why God can condemn people that say they are Christians and do good works plus condemn non Christians that do or don’t do good works. and as Paul tells us even save a unrepentant sinner committing adultery with his step mother. He can do that because it’s not about works it’s about faith and that Jesus atoned for our sins.
LikeLike
March 15, 2021 at 7:57 am
Paul the Poster writes:
The moral law transcends the Law of Moses. Murder was a sin prior to Moses, murder was a sin during Moses, and murder is a sin after Moses. When the New Testament calls out the Law of Moses, then that is exactly what it’s referring to. This is directly endorsed both by Christ and by the Apostles when either enjoining God’s commandments or abjuring the works of the flesh.
More empty hand-waiving on your part. You argument has been engaged multiple times now, including my most recent post. Your argument isn’t with me; it’s with the Lord Jesus Himself. Until you actually address the argument, you’re firing blanks. And when you finally get around to addressing it, you’ll be firing blanks as well because you can’t get around what the Lord specifically defined.
And your citation of the man committing “adultery” with his “step-mother” has also been addressed which you have yet to reply to.
It’s clear you’re not even reading my posts so why are you replying? I could not in good conscience do what you are doing. If there’s an argument on the table that I’ve not addressed, I’d do what I could to answer it biblically. If I could not answer it biblically, I’d do some soul-searching and adjust my views to conform to biblical teaching. And if you are reading my posts and simply pretending that I haven’t addressed your arguments, then you’re adding more lies to your record.
If you read nothing else, Paul, you should know that with every post you reinforce the caricature of OSAS sloppy grace. The notion that your theology is a license to sin is epitomized by you with almost every post. If you think that lying and cussing your way through a discussion is going to win converts to your side, you’re more deluded than Naz is.
LikeLike
March 15, 2021 at 10:48 am
Scalia ………….. ILMAO because you are the deluded one. it’s not my job to win converts my job is to tell you that you got it ass backwards and if you cant see that you are totally lost.
LOL ……… how could you have addressed my position and proven it wrong oh delusional one — when we are not even having the same discussion. in your false position — there is 2 types of works and 1 type of faith. in my correct position — there is 2 types of faith and 1 type of works. so you losers are making a delusional argument that we are saying a false or dead faith will save you while twisting the verses that clearly state not by works. and hilariously even when shown your error you cant acknowledge let alone see it and say it is delusional.
LOL ……… once you have the correct over all understanding as we do your arguments fail miserably because as Jesus, Paul and James ALL state the works are only present because you have the right kind of faith. we check ALL of the boxes with no down side while your position is the exact same as the enemies of God which try to prove God will abandon His children.
LikeLike
March 15, 2021 at 11:16 am
Paul the Poster is becoming more unhinged with every post. And whatever his “job” is, he’s failing at the most basic level: Actually addressing the objections.
As stated, his beef is with Jesus, not me:
John 6
28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
Clearly, Paul the Poster would reply to Jesus thusly:
“LOL!….you don’t even understand your own theology! Faith is a gift! It isn’t a work! You’re the deluded one if you think that faith is a work!. Here, let me help you. What you should have said was, “You cannot work to be saved because salvation is a free gift. All you need to do is believe because belief is not a work.”
OSAS advocates routinely ignore the text and re-explain it in accordance with their theology. They don’t want folks getting “confused” by the actual text, so they want you to ignore it by trying to get you to focus on their words rather than the Scriptures.
Now, it is quite clear why Christ called faith a work: You’re doing something in order to obtain salvation. And doing something in order to obtain is the basic, fundamental definition of “work” in a theological context. If you’re not required to do anything, then you’re not required to believe. You can even be an atheist and be saved because salvation is a free gift. There’s nothing we do can determine whether or not we have it. We either have it or we don’t.
Now, Paul the Poster’s ineptitude aside, OSAS advocates normally reply to John 6:29 by insisting that faith is undoubtedly the “work of God.” That though faith is certainly a work, it’s God’s work in man. In other words, man cannot decide to believe in God because he is “totally depraved,” in accordance with the first point of Calvinism (T-U-L-I-P) — Total Depravity. Hence, because man is totally depraved, God unconditionally elected (the ‘U’) every individual from eternity, He then limited His atonement to those He elected (the ‘L’), and in time moved man by irresistible grace (the ‘I’) to salvation by infusing him with faith, and since it’s always been God’s will to save the elect, there is no possible way for the elect to be lost — they will persevere forever (the ‘P’).Consequently, faith is the work of God and not the work of man, so man can take no credit even for exercising faith.
That this explanation is inadequate is made obvious by my robot example (this being the third time it’s offered). Even if the “robot” (that’s any believer) is “programmed” to believe, the robot is still doing something. The word “belief” includes trust and reliance. Whereas the robot never trusted in the robot maker, the maker rewires the robot to trust the maker’s every word. So, even if the maker is programming everything, the robot is still working. The point is, obviously, that you cannot get around the fact that faith is a work. It is thus a particular kind of work that we’re not saved by. Otherwise, we assert a contradiction.
So, in order for Paul the Poster to make a modicum of sense, he’s got to address the fact that Christ called belief a work. It’s obvious that Paul the Poster doesn’t have a problem with lying, so I guess he thinks that the Lord was lying too, because all he ever says in response to the Lord is polly-parrot his previous words: faith is not a work, faith is not a work, faith is not a work.
LikeLike
March 15, 2021 at 4:59 pm
“correct —– if Jesus claims you as His own as per the biblical example of His Church=His Bride ie. marriage, then your salvation is assured.”
Those metaphors are just…creepy. I would suggest avoiding them unless you want to drive people away from your version of Christianity. And your particular interpretation of the “rules” for salvation doesn’t help either. That you seem fine with that moral injustice is disturbing.
“that because God is not a liar, He will not abandon His own.”
But he clearly IS a liar because he deliberately deceives people:
• 1 Kings 22:23 So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours.
• 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
• Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet.
“it’s hilarious you works righteous heretics don’t get it”
If you’re referring to me (you didn’t specify), I’m not a “works righteous heretic” nor any other kind of heretic.
LikeLike
March 16, 2021 at 12:49 pm
Scalia ………….. wrong again —- just enjoying lmao at your silliness more and more.
LOL ……. TR agrees that it’s not by works is he delusional too ?
see the difference between Naz, TR and myself is how we deal with cre cre people like you. there’s basically these ways and some like Naz and TR seem to stay pretty much to the one they like while i can and do go back and forth depending on the person ignoring the facts.
A. politely decline a argument because that’s what the want
B. politely engage and try to reason with them at length
C. politely engage but briefly
D. LMAO at their stupidity in hopes to snap them out of their delusion or drive them deeper into it if the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide them away from their false position.
LOL ………. i spent over 30 yrs in the cult that invented your works righteous heresy and that’s why ILOL because you can’t see the errors in that position.
faith alone is not delusional oh delusional one …….. the correct type of faith always produces fruit as a by-product and as all of the biblical evidence clearly shows it’s the correct type of faith that saves us because of Jesus’ works.
same goes for osas oh delusional one …….. see because we are the elect we understand osas can be said in other ways like “all of the wheat (os) will be gathered into the barn (as).” once wheat always wheat …… wheat is not changed to tares.
LikeLike
March 16, 2021 at 12:59 pm
derekmathais ………. the very appropriate biblical analogy of the Church being the bride of Christ is creepy ? LOL ……….. see that’s just more proof you are cre cre. that won’t drive a child of God away —– that will drive a child of this world away.
LOL ……… and God’s children would see through the lies. and you play your silly games again —– those verses do not mean God will abandon His children except in your imagination.
LOL …….. not surprised you missed the point —- you are arguing for the works righteousness heresy just for different reasons than scalia. but hilariously you are both on the same team as you are proving the same point.
LikeLike
March 16, 2021 at 1:26 pm
Paul the Poster, as usual offers very little if any scriptural reasoning in his posts, and he doesn’t disappoint here. He writes,
This was directly addressed above. Here it is again:
A child cannot be unborn. Once a child, always a child. Once a son, always a son. Therefore, once saved, always saved.
This biological fact is cited as analogous to spiritual realities, but as is always the case with OSAS doctrine, it falls apart rather quickly. Before coming to Christ, whose children were we? As the twice-cited 1 John 3:8-10 tells us, those who practice sin are the children of the Devil.
[1 John 3
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.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.]
John 8
44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Matthew 13
38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,
So, rather than “once a child of the Devil, always a child of the Devil,” we can rejoice that spiritual father-child relationships can come to an end. You can end your parent-child relationship with the Devil by believing the gospel, and you can end your parent-child relationship with God by rejecting the gospel. In spiritual matters, there is no such thing as “once a child, always a child,” for a genuine Christian can certainly die spiritually:
James 5
19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back,
20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
The context of James 5 makes it unmistakable that James is referring to a Christian who wanders from the truth. Once said person wanders, he is no longer considered a Christian but is rather labeled a “sinner.” And if one is successful in brining him back, he shall save the soul of said sinner “from death.”
You cannot wander from the truth if you never had it, and if you never had it, what sense does it make to bring somebody “BACK” to his previous lost condition? If he never really had it, THEN HE WAS ALWAYS A SINNER! Why bring him back to a sinful condition? And how can you save a soul from death when he was ALREADY DEAD? And how can you cover a multitude of sins when the man was already in sin?? Very clearly, then, a saint can leave righteousness and become a sinner with the sentence of death upon him. And the only remedy is repentance.
LikeLike
March 16, 2021 at 2:01 pm
“I think we may be splitting hairs in terms of rejection versus unbelief. The end result is the same, you are in opposition to God whether you acknowledge His existence or not.”
Hmm, but don’t you agree that it’s clearly possible for someone to not believe intelligent alien life has visited Earth without rejecting the notion that it has? I think that’s a lot more than just splitting hairs.
“Based on your other comments of God being evil, I can only assume that if He showed up on your door step you would reject Him at that point. Is that a fair statement ?”
No, not at all. After all, we know the Bible contains claims that are contradicted by the evidence, so it’s quite plausible that if God exists he had nothing at all to do with writing the Bible. If it was written entirely by people merely relaying tales made up or deeply twisted by tribesmen (something that’s quite plausible, considering how much of it was written from oral tradition, which inevitably results in a game of “telephone”), then God may not have committed any of those acts of evil. In that case he would be blameless.
So I can say I reject the behavior portrayed by God in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean I reject God himself if he is not guilty of committing those atrocities. If he has a credible explanation, I would not reject him.
“Just doling out forgiveness is just a license to sin, there will be no change of behavior.”
That’s true…but forgiveness isn’t the mechanism one uses to change bad behavior. Just like words of wisdom aren’t the mechanism one uses to remove a brain tumor. The former has nothing to do with the latter. The way we change bad behavior is primarily through punishment (social penalties, incarceration, even death) and reward (primarily social benefits). We also use medical and psychological intervention in the case of people whose bad behavior is caused by physiological or psychological problems. Being all powerful, God has the capacity to intervene to cure ALL behavior problems. THAT is inarguably the most effective way to ensure everyone is saved…which the Bible says God wants:
• 1 Timothy 2:3-4 God our Savior, WHO DESIRES ALL MEN TO BE SAVED and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
• 2 Peter 3:9 Instead [the Lord] is patient with you, NOT WANTING ANYONE TO PERISH, but everyone to come to repentance.
But changing bad behavior through forgiveness? That’s like using a hammer to wash your hair. 😉
“That said, behavior is not everything, relationship is everything because everyone will make mistakes and sin so if my connection with God is based on my performance, then I’m doomed.”
Why? Nobody’s perfect and nobody has a right to expect imperfect people to not make mistakes. God KNEW creating Adam and Eve would automatically result in them failing to meet his standards UNLESS he did something to create them differently, so they wouldn’t sin. Or God could have simply forgiven A&E and be done with it. But just as it makes no sense for an engineer to blame a device he deliberately created to fail, neither is it just to punish someone for failing when you created them incapable of succeeding.
“it seems like this type of discussion always goes back to some poor kid in India or China living in a mud hut with not clue about God etc… I understand the argument, and Jesus said the gospel will be preached to every corner of the world. That is happening and even places like China and India are learning about the gospel. As for the kid in the mud hut, that’s not my problem, it’s God’s problem. I don’t need to explain it because I can’t. Some things are too big for us.”
Unfortunately, every argument about problems with God’s behavior inevitably ends with “the Lord works in mysterious ways.” But that just isn’t a sufficient answer when we’re dealing with atrocities. It seems to me the answers to these questions are not trivial, but instead deal-breakers that MUST be answered satisfactorily before one can even begin accepting someone as one’s leader. To do otherwise risks enabling and following evil.
And it’s clear that there are literally billions of people who have not been preached to–at least not enough to have more than a vague awareness of Christianity–so preaching, like a book, is inadequate for spreading the word. It seems to me the only rational system would be for everyone to be born with absolute belief in God, which would then allow them to choose between following and rejecting him. You can’t make an informed choice when you don’t have all the necessary information, after all.
“I know one thing, God is just and merciful.”
But HOW is he just, when almost everything he does in the Bible is unjust? That whole Adam and Eve point I made above is pretty much the ultimate in unjust, don’t you think?
“I can only speak to that and yes we are “lucky” or fortunate to live in a society where these things can be spoken of, at least for now until those freedoms are taken away eventually.”
What makes you think our freedoms will be taken away? It seems to me freedoms have mostly increased over the decades, especially for minorities and the disenfranchised.
“All I can say is that this is probably the biggest divide between what you and I believe, even more so than Darwinian evolution.”
Well, if you’re interested, I can provide you with an easy-to-understand yet detailed account of the evidence that overwhelmingly supports evolutionary theory, as well as an ancient Earth and universe. It’s my specialty, after all. 🙂
“I understand to have this view of God must be a huge stumbling block for you to get anywhere near to accepting and receiving the gospel.”
True. But I think you understand my arguments and that they make sense, even if you don’t agree with them.
“The fact that you blame God for causing the atrocities of mankind is astounding to me !”
Well, here’s my logic: If the Bible is true and God is all knowing, then BY DEFINITION he would have known all the universes that could possibly be imagined, including ones where Lucifer didn’t rebel, Adam and Eve didn’t disobey, the world didn’t become wicked and need drowning, and the vast majority of humanity wouldn’t disbelieve in him and be destined for hell. And if God is all powerful, then BY DEFINITION he could have created ANY of those universes. But he didn’t choose to create one where everyone happened to make the right decisions. Instead, he chose to create THIS universe, one where pretty much everything went wrong.
So the only logical conclusion I can see is that God WANTED Lucifer to rebel, he WANTED Adam and Eve to disobey, he WANTED the world to become wicked, he WANTED to drown the world in a flood, and he WANTS billions of people to end up burning in hell. Otherwise he would have chosen a different universe to create. Thus, HE is the one entirely responsible for the existence of sin in our universe, and HE is the cause of every atrocity. Right? What other conclusion could there possibly be regarding the choices of an all-knowing, all-powerful God? Truly, viewed as objectively as possible, what other explanation could possibly make more sense?
“Suffice to say, everyone has a lot to learn about tact and manners.”
Agreed.
“Both Scalia and I are saved. I can assure you of that. It’s interesting how you said “one of you is not going to be saved”. The bible never indicates that there will be a surprise on the day of judgment when we get to find out “IF” we are saved. If that was the case, can you imagine the angst that a person would be living with all their life. I would literally prefer to be an atheist at that point – seriously I would Derek.”
Okay, then something here doesn’t make sense. If you are both saved, then denomination doesn’t really matter then, does it? There’s no need to follow the “right” version of Christianity because you’re all saved. So why not choose an easy version, like one of the ones that believe you just have to behave like a good, kind person and you’ll be saved (and there is no hell)? I see a problem with that in the Bible:
• Luke 13:24 Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.
So how do you or Scalia or anyone know you are not one of those who “try to enter and will not be able to”? Keep in mind that there are literally billions of people in this world who think that you won’t be saved…and hundreds of millions of them are your fellow Christians. Every Christian THINKS he is saved…but nobody knows for sure until judgment day because the Bible does contain inaccuracies and contradictions that make the path to salvation questionable. What if the following passages mean exactly what they appear to mean:
• Mark 3:28-29 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.
• Matthew 12:31-32 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
• Luke 12:8-10 And everyone who speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
I understand you are interpreting “blasphemy” to be something other than the standard definition (“The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God”). But what if the Bible actually means the standard definition of blasphemy, and merely imagining the Holy Spirit as, say, a fat, hairy, naked man in a tutu and combat boots is enough to constitute blasphemy, from which there is no salvation?
You’re clearly operating on the assumption that God is good. But I struggle with finding any clear evidence that he is, even in the Bible (apart from where people CLAIM he’s good, but we all know actions speak louder than words). So what if God isn’t good? What if he’s pure evil? What if he treats humanity like a child playing with toy soldiers, destroying or saving people as he finds amusing? Unfortunately, read from that perspective the Bible makes far more sense. It’s easy to see an evil God wanting to be worshiped, ordering his people to slaughter babies, condoning slavery, allowing earnest people to become confused about the path to salvation, sending the vast majority of people to hell to burn for all eternity simply for not believing in him, and so on. But can you imagine a GOOD God doing any of those things? Perhaps it’s a failure of my imagination, but I can’t.
“Salvation is not about deciphering the bible and dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s. It’s not some sort of puzzle.”
Why do you believe that? Wouldn’t an evil God delight in setting all sorts of theological traps in the Bible to trick people into damning themselves? Wouldn’t a good God spell out everything so clearly that there could be no ambiguity, no confusion, no disagreement?
“It’s really not that complicated when you look beyond the trees and see that God wants to restore humanity to Himself, not in a robotic fashion, but in a manner in which Man chooses God freely. Only then can a genuine relationship exist.”
Again, though, THIS is the universe God chose to make, the one where almost everyone makes the wrong decisions and ends up burning in hell. The choices we make were already made by God BEFORE he even created the universe. As the Bible says over and over again, God plans EVERYTHING, even our very steps, which means he also has to be the one making all our choices. Here are just a few of those passages (I think I’ve provided you with a much more comprehensive list before):
• Proverbs 16:4 THE LORD WORKS OUT EVERYTHING to its proper end–even the wicked for the day of disaster. [He doesn’t just determine SOME things, he determines “EVERYTHING,” including what the wicked do.]
• Proverbs 16:9 In their hearts humans plan their course, but THE LORD ESTABLISHES THEIR STEPS. [God even determines our very steps!]
• Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its EVERY DECISION IS FROM THE LORD.
• Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but IT IS THE LORD’S PURPOSE THAT PREVAILS.
• Proverbs 20:24 A PERSON’S STEPS ARE DIRECTED BY THE LORD. HOW THEN CAN ANYONE UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN WAY?
• Proverbs 21:1 In the Lord’s hand THE KING’S HEART IS A STREAM OF WATER THAT HE CHANNELS TOWARD ALL WHO PLEASE HIM.
• Ephesians 1:5 He PREDESTINED us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS PLEASURE AND WILL.
• Ephesians 1:11 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.
• Jeremiah 10:23 LORD, I know that PEOPLE’S LIVES ARE NOT THEIR OWN; IT IS NOT FOR THEM TO DIRECT THEIR STEPS.
Regardless of whether we make our own choices or God makes them for us, an all-knowing God would be able to imagine a universe where we all happen to make the right choices (we know HE can because WE can), and an all-powerful God would be able to create that universe. What possible good reason could he have for deliberately choosing to create one of the universes he imagined where everything starts going wrong right from the beginning?
THAT I think is the ultimate question and it NEEDS to be answered for God to be considered good, don’t you think?
LikeLike
March 17, 2021 at 11:28 am
Scalia ……….. LOL, i posted numerous biblical verses proving my position 100% correct which you just dismiss w/o refuting except to say you have refuted them —- totally delusional on your part.
LOL ………… but as TR said way back —- your evidence only appears to prove faith+works which if were true doesn’t prove you’re correct it destroys “mere Christianity” as derekmathias is arguing which is why ILMAO at both of you.
ILMAO at derekmathias because he’s arguing what he doesn’t understand proves what he doesn’t understand is false.
LOL ……. but putting aside all of the biblical evidence i posted, which you haven’t refuted, my argument destroys yours. that’s because i can’t be wrong but you can. my evidence proves the good works are present not to save you but because you are saved. that’s because the correct type of faith does alone save you because it’s by-product is good works. your silly faith+works argument is not only delusional because ultimately we are save by grace it has biblical evidence (as i posted) condemning it.
LOL ……… so our position explains verses that show works are present when you are saved, works are not present when you are condemned and you can sin and still be saved by your faith —- as long as it’s a true/saving faith.
LOL ……. see it’s so simple that’s why you have to be under the “strong delusion” to not see it. if Jesus didn’t do what He did could any human being be granted eternal life ? if you answer Yes —- congratulations, and that means we are saved by what Jesus did. therefore, it’s a fact (not my opinion) we are right and it’s not by our works.
LOL …….. that’s why Jesus can save or condemn whoever He wants. He paid all of our sin debt. most people err in misunderstanding so they get that wrong it’s between life & death NOT heaven, hell or purgatory. another major error people make is not separating those that get saved in the 2 main groups His Church at His Second Coming and the others at the end of the millennial reign.
LikeLike
March 17, 2021 at 11:32 am
ooops if Jesus didn’t do what He did no one could be saved
LikeLike
March 17, 2021 at 12:05 pm
Paul the Poster says:
And unlike you, I actually replied to all of them, as anybody can see. With every post, your lies are getting more explicit. The only possible way you could be telling at least a half-truth is if you just skimmed my posts without really reading them. Then you could claim ignorance of whether I’ve replied to your arguments, but you would still be lying by saying that I just “dismiss w/o refuting except to say” I’ve refuted them. Actually, I refuted every one of your arguments, and you’ve dived for cover every time (only to come back and claim I never refuted you).
Listen, Paulie, this is the way argument works: If you offer an argument, and your opponent engages your argument point-by-point with reasons why your argument either fails or is falsified, you are obligated to show your opponent’s inferential mistakes if not for his benefit, then certainly the benefit of readers. When you disengage the argument and turn to ridicule and lying (as anybody can verify by looking above), you only make yourself look foolish.
And you continue to contradict the words of Jesus Himself:
John 6
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Clearly then, belief is a work, and because it’s a work, your entire premise that all works are a byproduct of faith collapses. Since faith itself is a work, it is incoherent to argue that all works are entirely the effects of faith. In order for you to cogently deny that belief is a work, you must first define “belief” in a manner that is discordant with your definition of “work.” I’ve been waiting for you to attempt that all this time, but you’re either incapable of figuring that out, or you know good and well that once you do, you cannot escape calling belief a work. Consequently, you’re forced to either assert a straight contradiction or you must harmonize the apparent discrepancy by affirming different types of works.
So, please define “faith” and “work.” And please tell us why Jesus was wrong when He called belief a work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 17, 2021 at 11:08 pm
Scalia ……………. my last post went missing so i’ll just briefly respond.
LOL ……. “my lies” that hilarious i didn’t lie about anything.
LOL ………… i know how an argument works and still waiting for you to prove us wrong.
LOL ……… that doesn’t prove belief is a work or that we are the only source for belief. i know how you hate links so i’ll just post this one verse here ….
“John 6:44 ESV / 16 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” that doesn’t look like a work to me …… but even if you believe it’s a work no problem as we proved it’s “not by works.”
““Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Simply put, the biblical definition of faith is “trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove.””
works imo are law keeping, baptism, confession, salutary acts/good works.
LikeLike
March 17, 2021 at 11:26 pm
but again interesting how you try and make belief a work and totally different from faith and there by say that destroys my argument because it’s not a by product ??? which is not really a problem at all imo based on the definition of belief ……
“(belief in)
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
“a belief in democratic politics” · [more]
synonyms:
faith · trust · reliance · confidence · credence · freedom from doubt · optimism · hopefulness · hope”
LikeLike
March 18, 2021 at 9:37 am
Paul the Poster writes:
So, when Jesus says that belief is a work “that doesn’t prove belief is a work,” right? Then Jesus is insufficient proof according to Paul’s theology. Of course, Paul is free to reject the words of the Lord, but at least he makes it obvious here. And, for the record, we consider the Lord’s words authoritative, so if He says that belief is a work, it is.
And the strange allegation that “we are the only source for belief” must have been imagined in the Poster’s mind because nobody has asserted that here. Moreover, the idea that man has no salvific free will has been addressed at least three times above. The Poster is thus firing blanks.
Now, the Poster provides an incomplete definition of faith, but he includes “trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove” and includes reliance, confidence, credence, and freedom from doubt. On the other hand, “works” is law keeping. The reason this definition is incomplete is we’re not told why one definition is substantively different from the other (which was included in what I asked). Upon analysis, they’re not.
The term “law” means “any written or positive rule or collection of rules” prescribed by an authoritative person or persons. In this case, the authority is God. Moreover, the proximate discussion centers on salvation and whether works are necessary for a person’s salvation. Naz and the Poster insist that faith is all that’s necessary to be saved, and a person’s works play no part in said person’s salvation, whereas I say that salvation by faith and not by works distinguishes kinds of works because faith, by definition, is a work, as argued repeatedly above and shown below:
First, the Lord said that belief is a work, so for all Bible-believers, that settles the issue once and for all:
John 6
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
The crowd asked Jesus what they “shall do” to work the works of God. The Lord answered that the work of God is to believe on Christ. Thus, it is unmistakable that a work is involved, it is something a person does, and that something is to believe on Christ. Moreover, this is not merely the opinion of a lone Pentecostal. Commentators of all denominal stripes, including Calvinist theologians, acknowledge that faith here is described as a work. As I stated above, Calvinists attribute all the work to God and none to man which overlooks the robot rejoinder.
That faith is a work is obvious from its definition to trust and rely. When you believe in something, you decide from what you’ve heard and/or read that the evidence is sufficient to warrant your acknowledging its credibility. You thus decide to accept the evidence provided as sufficient to make you live in accordance with said evidence. This of course means that belief is a personal decision of acceptance. When you trust somebody, you surrender your judgment to another. You relinquish your personal efforts to accomplish certain things and look to another to obtain it for you. Thus, from said word’s very definition, one is doing something in order to obtain.
Second, since belief is a requirement for obtaining everlasting life, then believing, by definition, is a rule (law):
Hebrews 11
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Note, if faith is not a requirement (rule), then one doesn’t need it to be saved. Since it is a requirement that one must have, then the requirement that one must believe to be saved is definitionally indistinct from any other rule applicable to Christians. Thus, the argument that faith isn’t a work is incoherent.
Against this, the Poster tries to argue that faith is given to us of God and implies that we have nothing to do with either obtaining it or exercising it. However, that objection has been, as already noted, addressed multiple times. If we are merely robots in the salvation process—merely reacting to God’s irresistible grace—we are nonetheless doing something. A computer that merely follows its program is still working even if it has no free will.
So, from the Poster’s definitions, we see that works are “law keeping,” and belief is “trust.” Since laws are requirements and since faith is a requirement, it follows that faith is a law. Thus, exercising faith is definitionally indistinct from exercising any other work. We’re then left with an apparent inconsistency. If we’re saved by faith and not by works, then the works we’re not saved by MUST be a different kind of work. As an analogy, the Bible says that God will pour out His Spirit upon “all” flesh. But that doesn’t mean that peacocks, walruses and kangaroos will receive the Holy Spirit. Nor does it mean that all human beings will receive it either. Consequently, the “all” is limited to a particular meaning. We wouldn’t say like the Poster, “Well, it says ‘all flesh’ so all flesh means all flesh!”
Faith is the wholehearted acknowledgement of God’s existence, His redemptive plan in the person of Jesus Christ and a surrendering of one’s will to the providence of God. If faith isn’t a work, then faith is nothing.
LikeLike
March 18, 2021 at 9:46 pm
Scalia ……….. so you proved not by works like you proved my argument fails ? lmao……. big problem with your claim is my by product remark is based on your sides position. if you change your argument i can also change mine.
LOL ………. “faith+works=salvation” is your sides theory not ours. can you switch your argument ? yes but that doesn’t disprove mine. so if you are now saying faith or belief or whatever is a work no problem for me because your new formula would be — works=salvation. no by products now so my position is fine because we have proved it’s not by works. the only issue is i can’t use my by products evidence for your new formula because since you switched your argument by products no longer apply.
so now it’s easy to correct my argument to the example i previously gave using your new formula …….based on the 2 groups of Christians both have equal faith/belief according to your new position but only 1 group has works. so that proves the one group is saved by works right ? still no, that’s because the one group is the group mentioned in John 6: 44 and they’ll be raised up on the last day. and the other group w/o works is not included in the John 6: 44 group —– otherwise what oh delusional one ? they’d be saved too/raised up on the last day too. easy breezy & because all of our evidence proving “not by works” still holds true you are still wrong.
no that’s just you saying Jesus is saying belief is a work. i disagree that it is a work for the reason stated. and this is the first time in all of these years i ever heard a person on either side refer to belief which in this case is interchangeable with faith as a work. that’s because of James it’s always stated as faith+works. but again irrelevant and still shows you are cre cre because whether a work or not it’s “not by works.”
LikeLike
March 18, 2021 at 11:58 pm
Paul the Poster writes:
This makes not the slightest modicum of sense. As anybody but the Poster can see, I haven’t changed one thing.
Notice again, Paul doesn’t provide even one example of anything I’ve changed. He finds that he cannot refute the argument, so he desperately tries to change the subject.
The confusion continues to dribble from Paul’s keyboard.
Paul doesn’t disagree at all. He is simply refusing to acknowledge what the text plainly says. Time and again, he’s been provided with plain, easy to understand, explicit passages from the Bible that he simply refuses to accept because it contradicts what he wants to believe. If the text says that the sky is blue, Paul will deny that the sky is blue if he doesn’t want to believe the sky is blue. And you can quote “blue, blue, blue” until you’re blue in the face, and Paul will simply say that it doesn’t mean that. And if Paul is really unaware of the plethora of commentary on that verse (and of course that’s really easy to believe since he trashes everything he doesn’t want to believe), it is irrelevant because anybody can pull almost any commentary, reformed or otherwise, and verify it to be so.
Jesus said, “This is the WORK of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” In other words, to believe in God is the work of God! Belief is plainly called a work and can only mean “work” regardless one’s theological posture. Of the many denominational disputes on the table in Christendom, this isn’t one of them. Paul stands practically alone in the world of those who deny what that passage says. Bizarre, but we’re used to that by now.
Once again, the Poster defines faith as trust and reliance whereas a work is law-keeping. As shown above:
The term “law” means “any written or positive rule or collection of rules” prescribed by an authoritative person or persons. In this case, the authority is God. Moreover, the proximate discussion centers on salvation and whether works are necessary for a person’s salvation. Naz and the Poster insist that faith is all that’s necessary to be saved, and a person’s works play no part in said person’s salvation, whereas I say that salvation by faith and not by works distinguishes kinds of works because faith, by definition, is a work, as argued repeatedly above and shown below:
First, the Lord said that belief is a work, so for all Bible-believers, that settles the issue once and for all:
John 6
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
The crowd asked Jesus what they “shall do” to work the works of God. The Lord answered that the work of God is to believe on Christ. Thus, it is unmistakable that a work is involved, it is something a person does, and that something is to believe on Christ. Moreover, this is not merely the opinion of a lone Pentecostal. Commentators of all denominal stripes, including Calvinist theologians, acknowledge that faith here is described as a work. As I stated above, Calvinists attribute all the work to God and none to man which overlooks the robot rejoinder.
That faith is a work is obvious from its definition to trust and rely. When you believe in something, you decide from what you’ve heard and/or read that the evidence is sufficient to warrant your acknowledging its credibility. You thus decide to accept the evidence provided as sufficient to make you live in accordance with said evidence. This of course means that belief is a personal decision of acceptance. When you trust somebody, you surrender your judgment to another. You relinquish your personal efforts to accomplish certain things and look to another to obtain it for you. Thus, from said word’s very definition, one is doing something in order to obtain.
Second, since belief is a requirement for obtaining everlasting life, then believing, by definition, is a rule (law):
Hebrews 11
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Note, if faith is not a requirement (rule), then one doesn’t need it to be saved. Since it is a requirement that one must have, then the requirement that one must believe to be saved is definitionally indistinct from any other rule applicable to Christians. Thus, the argument that faith isn’t a work is incoherent.
And the summation is what I’ve been saying all along:
So, from the Poster’s definitions, we see that works are “law keeping,” and belief is “trust.” Since laws are requirements and since faith is a requirement, it follows that faith is a law. Thus, exercising faith is definitionally indistinct from exercising any other work. We’re then left with an apparent inconsistency. If we’re saved by faith and not by works, then the works we’re not saved by MUST be a different kind of work. As an analogy, the Bible says that God will pour out His Spirit upon “all” flesh. But that doesn’t mean that peacocks, walruses and kangaroos will receive the Holy Spirit. Nor does it mean that all human beings will receive it either. Consequently, the “all” is limited to a particular meaning. We wouldn’t say like the Poster, “Well, it says ‘all flesh’ so all flesh means all flesh!”
Faith is the wholehearted acknowledgement of God’s existence, His redemptive plan in the person of Jesus Christ and a surrendering of one’s will to the providence of God. If faith isn’t a work, then faith is nothing.
Bottom line: Paul’s definitions do not separate faith from works. By virtue of the fact that faith is a requirement makes it a rule which makes it a law which makes its exercise a work, whether or not we are spiritual robots.
LikeLike
March 19, 2021 at 2:54 pm
“True believers will not be surprised; those deceived by God’s “strong delusion” (2 Thes. 2:11) and the conceit of their hearts in professing salvation when they indeed are not saved will be shocked in the judgment.”
But don’t the followers of EVERY denomination believe they are following the right denomination? Don’t they believe that they are the ones who are not deceived and that pretty much every other denomination IS deceived? I’ve certainly heard that time and time again from preachers, not just in this country but all over the world. If God willingly deceives people, as the Bible repeatedly claims…
• 1 Kings 22:23 So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. [God forces people to lie.]
• 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie. [Again.]
• Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet. [And again.]
…then how can anyone possibly know they are not the ones being deceived? How can anyone possibly know that the prophets, preachers, scholars, etc. they believe haven’t been deceived by God?
If your presupposition is that God is good, then of course you will find ways to interpret the above words to not apply to you…but viewed without bias it should be clear that you cannot claim to not be deceived.
LikeLike
March 19, 2021 at 4:48 pm
“those that oppose “not by works” are usually ignorant of the meaning of that phrase and misunderstand that it’s not about works it’s about the type of faith you possess.”
Well, you believe this because someone told you this, or it’s your own interpretation. Either way, you can’t KNOW this to be true because the Bible doesn’t come with a clear key, and many passages are contradictory, forcing people to resort to various subjective interpretations to reconcile those contradictions. Thus it leads to people like you and Scalia arguing nastily back and forth, throwing scripture and LOLs at each other, disparaging each other, and claiming each other follows a false doctrine. That nastiness even among supposed brothers in Christ tells me there is something fundamentally wrong with your beliefs, since according to Jesus that should never happen:
• John 17:20-23 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, THAT ALL OF THEM MAY BE ONE, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, THAT THEY MAY BE ONE AS WE ARE ONE—I in them and you in me—SO THAT THEY MAY BE BROUGHT TO COMPLETE UNITY. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
• 1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ALL OF YOU AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER in what you say and that THERE BE NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU, BUT THAT YOU BE PERFECTLY UNITED IN MIND AND THOUGHT.
Do you not see a serious problem with your religion when its leader’s (and God incarnate’s!) prayers could fail so spectacularly? Catholics v. Protestants, Calvinists v. Lutherans, etc., all hold doctrines that are so fundamentally different even on central issues like salvation that choosing the “wrong” one could mean damnation, so it’s clear Christians are not perfectly united in mind and thought. Not even close. And these battles have been raging for centuries. Does that not even raise a red flag for you? Do you not see why bickering infighting like this gives people reasonable justification for rejecting Christianity as a false religion?
LikeLike
March 19, 2021 at 6:19 pm
LOL ……….. it’s way better to be “Paul the Poster” than spiritual blind Scalia/derekmathias. again you both play the lying retard game. not able to comprehend when Naz, TR and myself have laid it out so plainly any 5th grader could understand. and if we are wrong it doesn’t mean you are right it means “mere Christianity” is false. and im a truth seeker so if anybody on your side made a argument for your position i’d gladly accept it and move back to being an agnostic —- but since your arguments are delusional i don’t have to worry about that. because even the delusional cult i belonged to ….. that invented faith+works=salvation …… freely admits we are saved by grace alone.
there are 3 positions, A & B are heretical and C is biblical truth.
A. a false/dead faith=salvation B. works=salvation (based on your new theory that faith/belief are works) C. a true/saving faith=salvation. by me agreeing good works should be present while affirming it’s not by works i exposed the main error you cre cre people make —– a straw man argument saying we are preaching position A. when we are not.
Scalia …… do you have an email contact for that osas congregation you left ? because i’d love to know if you went from 1 heresy to the next or if you left a biblical congregation for heresy. the 1st means you have a tiny chance you could get back on track the 2nd means you are totally lost. if you want send them my email <<>>
again, of the many mistakes your side makes you now ignore this one ……..
not any one can save themselves by believing in Jesus and doing good works.
that’s obvious to any sane person using one of the most common analogies or as some say metaphors —– marriage as in the bride of Christ. the most important part is Jesus has to say yes to you too. if Jesus doesn’t say yes to you your faith and good works are useless in getting you raised up on the last day because you are not His bride/part of the body of Christ/the ekklesia/the Church. you are just a nice person that may get mercy at the Great White Throne Judgement or cast into the lake of fire where you are destroyed body and soul.
LikeLike
March 19, 2021 at 6:23 pm
strange my email never posted possibly it can’t ? anyway i’ll try again paulvv@telus.net
LikeLike
March 20, 2021 at 12:59 am
Paul the Poster writes,
I actually understand your position quite well, In fact, I’ve explained it more than once. The debate has nothing to do with understanding your position and everything to do with whether or not the Bible teaches it.
By the way, “TR” is Jason Dulle. You’re forgetting that he clearly states that a person can lose salvation and go to hell. Though he and I differ over the classification of faith, we do not differ on salvific free will and the ability of a person to walk away from the church and be lost. Moreover, both he and I are Oneness Pentecostals, so we agree far more than we disagree on fundamental matters relating to the Godhead, salvation and morality.
So, let’s look at where we’ve gone. You alleged that I changed my argument. When I asked you to show me where my argument changed, you drop it. Every time you’ve offered a scriptural argument, I’ve directly engaged it by showing how your conclusions do not follow and by offering counter arguments showing the superiority of another interpretation. What have you done? You simply drop the subject and claim I’ve been refuted. There’s a world of difference between an assertion and proof. Proof is NOT restating your position. Real proof is showing where inferential mistakes are made and why counterarguments fail. You of course never do that (if you claim otherwise, then show us where).
Now you claim that John 6:29’s teaching that faith is a work is “new.” I guess you never got around to checking the plethora of commentaries published long before you and I were born which say the same thing. Even Calvin acknowledged that said passage, at least on its face, teaches that faith is a work:
“The work of God is this. They had spoken of works Christ reminds them of one work, that is, faith; by which he means that all that men undertake without faith is vain and useless, but that faith alone is sufficient, because this alone does God require from us, that we believe…Faith is called the only work of God, because by means of it we possess Christ, and thus become the sons of God, so that he governs us by his Spirit.”
I am not saying that Calvin agreed with my arguments (he clearly did not). The only reason I’m raising him is to counter your ridiculous assertion that what I’ve been saying is “new,” and to show that even Calvin himself admitted that faith is called a work in John 6:29. Calvin claimed that Christ was not speaking with “strict accuracy” because of what he argued was the functional difference between faith and works. And although he explicitly abjured the argument that faith is a work, and that therefore we are saved by works, he nonetheless ignorantly affirmed what we argue because by pointing out the functional difference between faith and “works,” he is essentially saying that faith is a different kind of work.
This is not rocket science. As stated earlier, of the many disagreements on the table between denominations, this isn’t one of them. There is NO DOUBT Christ called faith a work. Consequently, a person who denies that cannot be said to be a “truth seeker.” Truth seekers don’t deny what the text plainly says.
John 6:29 contains three distinct clauses:
(a) This is the work of God (b) that ye believe on him (c) whom he hath sent.
“This” is a pronoun, “is” is a linking verb, “work” is a predicate nominative and “of God” is a prepositional phrase. Thus “this” is linked to the work of God, but it leaves open, momentarily, the question of what the work of God is. The second clause is the adverb clause which explains the “is” in the previous clause, which tells us that believing on Christ is the work of God. The third clause is the adjective clause which defines the “him” in the previous clause. Thus, the work of God is believing on Christ. This isn’t a matter of my opinion or Paul’s. It’s a linguistic fact.
Ellicot’s Commentary: “The work of life is faith; and “faith worketh by love” (Galatians 5:6).”
Pulpit Commentary: “This is the work of God. Observe, not “works,” but “work” – the one work which is the germ and the consummation of all the partial workings which are often made substitutes for it. There is “one work” which God would have man do. Jesus admits that there is something to do (ποιεῖν) – there is a labour, an effort of the will needed to do what God requires; and this is evident enough as soon as this great work is described, viz. That ye believe on him whom he (the Father) sent; or, hath sent…This is the work of God. Observe, not “works,” but “work” – the one work which is the germ and the consummation of all the partial workings which are often made substitutes for it. There is “one work” which God would have man do. Jesus admits that there is something to do (ποιεῖν) – there is a labour, an effort of the will needed to do what God requires; and this is evident enough as soon as this great work is described, viz. That ye believe on him whom he (the Father) sent; or, hath sent.”
Barnes Notes on the Bible: “Jesus did not tell them they had nothing to do, or that they were to sit down and wait, but that there was a work to perform, and that was a duty that was imperative. It was to believe on the Messiah. This is the work which sinners are to do; and doing this they will be saved, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth, Romans 10:4.”
Vincent’s Word Studies: “Faith is put as a moral act or work. The work of God is to believe. Faith includes all the works which God requires. The Jews’ question contemplates numerous works. Jesus’ answer directs them to one work.”
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: “Jesus answered and said unto them, this is the work of God,…. The main and principal one, and which is well pleasing in his sight; and without which it is impossible to please him; and without which no work whatever is a good work; and this is of the operation of God, which he himself works in men; it is not of themselves, it is the pure gift of God:
that ye believe on him whom he hath sent; there are other works which are well pleasing to God, when rightly performed, but faith is the chief work, and others are only acceptable when done in the faith of Christ.”
Note, I am not saying that all these guys were Oneness Pentecostals. The salient point is that they all recognized the plain teaching of John 6:29, and that is Christ called faith a work.
LikeLike
March 20, 2021 at 10:27 am
“Regardless of whether we make our own choices or God makes them for us, an all-knowing God would be able to imagine a universe where we all happen to make the right choices (we know HE can because WE can), and an all-powerful God would be able to create that universe. What possible good reason could he have for deliberately choosing to create one of the universes he imagined where everything starts going wrong right from the beginning?
THAT I think is the ultimate question and it NEEDS to be answered for God to be considered good, don’t you think?”
Derek, I appreciate your post and I will try to answer your last point. I think myself and others here have done enough damage for you to ever remotely consider that God exists and the gospel is true. For that I truly apologize. Our old ways of doing things, like arguments, contentions and divisions take hold of us at times and it looks like those here have fallen prey to this kind of behavior once again. That said, while we may not be shining examples of unity on this blog, that doesn’t change the truth, even though it disqualifies us from being ministers of the gospel.
To your question as to why God didn’t create a universe where we all make the right choices. Don’t you think this is an exercise in futile speculation ? Why do you think the answer to this question is imperative in determining whether God is good or not ? What happened to taking responsibility for our own actions ? So God is not good because He has given me a choice to do evil and not only good ? So you are implying that God’s decision to give us a choice that could result in sin makes Him the Author of sin ? it sounds like you want to sacrifice freedom for an artificial utopia. I think God has already thought of this, and in fact this is the what the new heavens and new earth will be all about. There will be no sin and no ability to sin based on my understanding of the scriptures. Not in a robotic fashion that takes away our freedom, but more in the sense of our new nature. Sin will no longer exist and our very being will be transformed to that like Jesus after His resurrection. So if you get in the game Derek you will have the universe you’ve always wanted one day ! But Jesus will be on the throne, not Darwin 🙂
The universe is what it is and we are living in it. If I am going to shake my fist at God and say why, that makes me pretty pathetic and I probably think way too much of myself. When I look at the universe and even the earth itself, frankly it’s humbling. I don’t claim to master it or have perfect knowledge of it, We learn, we ask questions, it’s really a marvel. Existence itself is fascinating when you consider it in it’s proper context. I can think of many reasons why God would create this universe, but the one that sticks with me the most is having the ultimate free will to choose – freedom, If nothing else God created you with the ultimate characteristic of free will and self determination. Even the will to not believe He exists despite the obvious evidence from the creation that God exists (Romans 1:19-21).
I know that will not sit well with you as here is a passage telling you that its clear and obvious that God created the universe and that you have no excuse to deny His existence. More than that, it calls you futile, foolish and darkened in your heart. That’s tough on the ego, I know. No wonder you are so adamant to argue your point.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
You would probably say the same to me about Evolution and don’t understand why I can’t see that its obviously true. We are on opposite sides of the coin. I’m intrigued that you think if I carefully studied the evolutionary theory that I would somehow convert. That’s just not going to happen for the same reasons why my trying to explain bible passages to you is not going to make you convert to Christ. Knowing your manner of discussion, at this point you will tell me that you clearly have declared God evil from various passages of scripture and that your presentation of evolutionary “facts” are clear and obvious observations from science and are indisputable. I would retort and say the God of the bible said He created the universe and His words are indisputable. Moreover I would contend that the scientific “facts” are disputable and have been misappropriated by flawed human beings.
And back and forth we go. Your manner to stick to so-called observable and scientific facts is contrary to my claim of appealing to a transcendent being like God. So you operate by sight and I operate by faith.
Behavior is not the end game, relationship is. This is where freedom comes in to play. The gospel is all about being reconciled to God. Reconciliation is a relationship term, not a behavioral term. That doesn’t diminish good behavior but it’s not the primary purpose of salvation.
2 Cor 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
The perfect Universe you’ve always wanted awaits you Derek ….
Cheers !
Naz
LikeLike
March 20, 2021 at 10:43 am
Lots of discussion here on John 6:29. I love this verse.
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
We can’t confuse this with works of the law or being saved by works etc … I think that’s pretty obvious.
This is clearly talking about faith in Christ. I have no problem calling it a work in the sense that every person must have a faith response to the gospel in order to be saved. Faith is a big deal and we diminish the impact of someone simply believing in Jesus Christ. A number of us have argued with people on this blog for months if not years who simply will not believe.
I have to agree with Scalia on this one in principle. I don’t think this at all contradicts salvation by faith. There must be aresponse on the part of the believer. This reminds me of the passage in James where it refers to Abraham and Rahab and their faith response that showed their faith. It’s not a mental belief only, but a trusting and reliance upon God that makes up the substance of our faith.
Naz
LikeLike
March 20, 2021 at 10:56 am
Naz writes,
I mostly agree. As I’ve stated repeatedly, we’re talking about different kinds of works, so faith is definitely set apart from the Mosaic law and works of morality. There are non-Christians who do not commit adultery, steal, lie or kill, but that in themselves cannot save anybody.
Again, I mostly agree. If there is no response, there is no faith, as James taught. Although faith is a work, it is a very different kind of work that includes our wholehearted surrender to the will of God.
LikeLike
March 20, 2021 at 11:11 am
Naz writes,
Agreed…again! Our agreeing is getting dangerous. People will start talking.
Anyway, once we have a consistent definition of “good,” and if we can prove that God is infinitely good, then it follows that if evil exists, there is a morally justifiable reason for evil. The question of God’s existence, then, cannot turn on the problem of evil. Moreover, how is it that a finite human being, who lives some 70-75 years on the earth, can look at the breadth of eternity and make pronouncements on the ultimate reason for Instance A or Instance B? All of us recognize that limited vision or knowledge impedes full understanding. The fact that we cannot figure out the reason for X does not imply that there is no reason for it.
Also, on what epistemological platform are we standing when we criticize the acts of God? If good and evil are our private fancies, opinions and/or feelings, they bear no universal relevance, so they cannot count against God’s existence. The whole thrust of the argument from evil is that there has to be some universal standard in order to diagnose a universal wrong, but without God, there is no universal standard. If we’re nothing but molecules in motion, then there is no universal moral implication. And if we merely assume a universal standard to evaluate “God,” we overlook the fact that if God is infinitely good, there has to be a morally justified reason for evil. Our limited scope of experience does not disprove a universal. Again, the question turns on whether God’s goodness can be proved. If so, the objection collapses. If not, then there is no God.
LikeLike
March 21, 2021 at 2:29 pm
Scalia ………… LOL ……. of course it does because if you don’t understand you end up like derekmathias —- stating you’ve just proved God is a liar …… which is delusional. and you deny it but the enemies of Christ make the same arguments you do on this issue to prove that very thing.
LOL ………… but we’ve proved biblically “not by works” & “works being present”
are not mutually exclusive/don’t contradict each other. therefore, the other biblical evidence proving it’s the individual is the key factor.
LOL ……….. and if you can’t see that the only logical conclusion is you are like derekmathias and also delusional. that’s because ive eliminated the possibility
you are just a thick headed nut job because when we explained it —- it just went in one ear and out the other. the only thing you proved, and i don’t want to speak for others, is works should be present. and no one i know disagrees with that because —- if there’s no change in the individual at all — that would indicate the heresy of a false/dead faith=salvation.
LOL ………… you can look it up —- but from Gen 3 to the parable of the wheat & tares God tells us He has children and satan has children. God doesn’t send the “strong delusion” to His children but to satan’s children also showing 2 groups. satans children can’t be in the group of a true/saving faith=salvation but they can be in the other 2 (false/dead faith=salvation/work=salvation). on the other hand God’s children could be in all 3 groups but when the problems with the 2 heretical groups are explained at a minimum they should take a step back and say wow you could be right/i need to research that some more. but if they say that’s delusional they are the delusional ones —– because you are really calling God a liar and saying He called/claimed/choose some one knowing they would do what they are going to do and abandon them when they did it.
LOL ………… who is John talking to when he says “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us ?” by the context it’s a believer —– and that’s remedied how ? by what works Jesus did not us confessing —- because w/o His completed work we can’t be forgiven and our confession would be useless. that’s why the OT verses about God sprinkling/giving His people a new heart and saving them only makes sense in the context of Jesus’ future sacrifice. sorry ……. but your reprobate mind doesn’t get it —– Jesus Alone saves.
LikeLike
March 21, 2021 at 2:37 pm
@Paul the Poster,
You were asked where I changed my argument. You made that allegation, now show us where my argument changed.
You also charged that my argument is “new.” I have proven otherwise. Will you be man enough to apologize or are you still insisting that my argument is new? if the latter, how is it new when those long dead affirmed the same thing?
LikeLike
March 21, 2021 at 2:38 pm
Naz…… i don’t have a problem calling it a work either but there’s a difference in believing Alexander the Great existed and he was who they said he was and Jesus of Nazareth existed and Who they said He was. that’s why i don’t consider belief/faith in Jesus as a work but a gift from God.
now that being said ……. whether a work or gift it’s irrelevant because the biblical evidence clearly states it’s “not by work’s.”
LikeLike
March 21, 2021 at 2:45 pm
Scalia ……….. LOL —- i did already but i’ll do it again. the argument always was faith+works=salvation. you stated here —– no faith/believing in Jesus is a work to play the lying retard game and destroy my argument that works would be a by product. so that means you changed the formula to works=salvation.
LikeLike
March 21, 2021 at 2:56 pm
Paul the Poster writes,
First, I never argued that “faith+works=salvation.” You show me one post where I said that. My argument from the beginning (and for years) has been that faith is a work, but it is a functionally different kind of work from the works we are not saved by. You have thus made a false accusation. That faith is a work is defined as such by the Lord in John 6:29, it is recognized as such by numerous Bible commentators, including John Calvin, and it must be classified as a work pursuant to your own definition of the terms. Now, you may certainly disagree with my conclusions, but you’re being dishonest when you say that I’ve changed my argument. For the third time now, show us WHERE I changed my argument. Don’t worry about looking, because you won’t find it. You’re either mistaken or you’re lying. If the former, then have the integrity to apologize. If the latter, you’re profane.
Now, you also accused me of introducing something “new.” I did no such thing and proved it above. You were either ignorant of the evidence (that cannot be the case because I told you otherwise) or you were lying. If the former, then have the integrity to apologize. If the latter, you’re profane.
LikeLike
March 22, 2021 at 5:17 am
“As I’ve stated repeatedly, we’re talking about different kinds of works, so faith is definitely set apart from the Mosaic law and works of morality.”
Scalia, Bingo !
I fully and wholeheartedly agree with that statement.
“now that being said ……. whether a work or gift it’s irrelevant because the biblical evidence clearly states it’s “not by work’s.” ”
Paul, yes it’s definitely not by works and everything, even life itself is a gift from God. I think the key to this is James. If you look at Abraham and Rahab, you see a one time faith response not a lifelong track record of works that proves their faith. Even the thief on the cross, who couldn’t “do” anything showed his faith by asking Jesus to remember him. This is a heart issue.
Naz
LikeLike
March 22, 2021 at 7:40 am
@Naz, then I don’t know what much of the argument above was all about. Contrary to Paul’s accusation, my argument hasn’t changed one whit. Moreover, your agreement is clearly with a different inflection than I intend. Nonetheless, I’m glad that there is some terminological clarity between us.
LikeLike
March 22, 2021 at 2:44 pm
Scalia ……….. LOL ……. it’s irrelevant if you said faith+works=salvation or not because …… that’s the argument. and if you don’t think stating believing in Jesus or as we say faith is now a work and that hasn’t changed the argument that just proves you are delusional or at a minimum ignorant of the position you are arguing for. and as i correctly stated if believing is a work it’s irrelevant except to change the argument to make a straw man about me being wrong when im not. because go back to the 2 groups of Christians as now described —both had faith/believed in Jesus but the difference is the 1 group were described as having works and the other didn’t have works. but the biblical evidence proves it’s “not by works” so the only real difference is the saved group were the ones John 6: 44 refers to.
LOL …….. if you aren’t arguing for faith+works=salvation (where you recently indicated faith/believing in Jesus is a work which means works=salvation) wth is your argument ? because all of your arguments are for that position …….. the same bs ive heard for decades. because if you are saying works are present we have always admitted that oh delusional one. the only ones that don’t are that heretical group i mentioned, you should be aware of if you did any research.
LOL …….. the logical conclusion is you are doing what you did last time …….. stepped in it and now trying to weasel out w/o admitting your error. that’s one of the reasons i thought you were roman catholic last time —- you use their same tricks.
LikeLike
March 22, 2021 at 2:55 pm
Naz ……….. did i miss one of scalia’s posts where he clearly stated his argument is not faith+works=salvation ? if not, in your opinion wth is Scalia arguing for if he’s not saying faith+works=salvation ? because that’s exactly what his arguments ive seen mean. and based on your responses im guessing that’s your impression too. often people like that don’t clearly state their position as a silly tactic to win an argument instead of having an exchange of ideas.
LikeLike
March 22, 2021 at 3:24 pm
@Paul the Poster:
First, I never argued that “faith+works=salvation.” You show me one post where I said that. My argument from the beginning (and for years) has been that faith is a work, but it is a functionally different kind of work from the works we are not saved by. You have thus made a false accusation. That faith is a work is defined as such by the Lord in John 6:29, it is recognized as such by numerous Bible commentators, including John Calvin, and it must be classified as a work pursuant to your own definition of the terms. Now, you may certainly disagree with my conclusions, but you’re being dishonest when you say that I’ve changed my argument. For the third time now, show us WHERE I changed my argument. Don’t worry about looking, because you won’t find it. You’re either mistaken or you’re lying. If the former, then have the integrity to apologize. If the latter, you’re profane.
Now, you also accused me of introducing something “new.” I did no such thing and proved it above. You were either ignorant of the evidence (that cannot be the case because I told you otherwise) or you were lying. If the former, then have the integrity to apologize. If the latter, you’re profane.
You have no integrity and you have no honor. I clearly explained above what I’ve been arguing all along, and there’s been no change in my stance whatsoever. Believe me, if you could prove it, you would. Faith is a work and I consistently said from the beginning that if the Bible says we’re not saved by works, then it is a particular kind of work that we’re not saved by. I can’t help it if you have reading comprehension issues, but when you level a false accusation, and it’s pointed out to you, you should have the decency to apologize no matter how much in error you think I am. I believe that you and Naz are just as much in doctrinal error as you fancy me to be, but I nonetheless apologized to him when I misread one of the words in his post and replied accordingly. You know you falsely accused me, and you aren’t honest enough to admit it, or at least acknowledge that you made a mistake.
Ditto for introducing a “new” concept. There’s nothing new in what I wrote. I proved that above and you know it.
And your running to Naz for validation is particularly pathetic. He clearly states that he agrees with me as a matter of principle (and he didn’t accuse me of changing the argument or introducing a novelty), but because you know you stepped in it with false accusations, you want somebody else to lie for you. Incredible.
LikeLike
March 22, 2021 at 4:45 pm
“the very appropriate biblical analogy of the Church being the bride of Christ is creepy ?”
I’m not saying it’s not an appropriate analogy…just that it’s creepy and disturbing–at least to anyone who is not a Christian.
“see that’s just more proof you are cre cre.”
I base my beliefs on evidence, logic and reason…but I’m the one who is crazy? O-kay….
“those verses do not mean God will abandon His children except in your imagination.”
Really? And how do you know that? What you’re making is an assertion, and assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Here are the passages again:
• 1 Kings 22:23 So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours.
• 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
• Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet.
I get that the clear, obvious interpretation of those passages may be anathema to your beliefs, but that doesn’t make the straightforward interpretation false. You need credible evidence to support that claim (and not just other biblical passages that contradict them, because then all you’ll have done is provide a contradiction). Can you do that? Or is this just another one of those things you take on faith?
“you are arguing for the works righteousness heresy just for different reasons than scalia. but hilariously you are both on the same team as you are proving the same point.”
I am arguing neither for grace nor for grace plus works. I’m just noting that you are evidently SO SURE of your position, when Scalia’s position is just as credible. Over and over again you two have presented your evidence from scripture, but neither of you can honestly claim to KNOW. You’re just claiming that you do and using the same technique in your arguments: touting the scripture that fits the interpretation you want, and minimizing or “creatively interpreting” the passages that don’t help your position. These very same claims have been argued over by biblical scholars for hundreds of years without being resolved, so I don’t know why you seem to think you’ll resolve anything here. I can promise you you won’t. You should simply agree to disagree, rather than hurl insults at each other over and over again. You’re just making Christians look bad.
LikeLike
March 22, 2021 at 5:38 pm
@Derek,
Why is the marital analogy creepy to you?
Actually, I’ve “hurled” very few insults. The overwhelming majority of my content is scriptural analysis and argument analysis. And if you’ve actually read the posts, you should know that Paul is incapable of putting an argument together, and his posts are entirely devoid of real argument analysis. There is no real comparison.
The only reason I continue to post, apart from rightfully telling Paul that he should apologize for false accusations, is when any new angle is introduced or an argument is repeated that’s been addressed. That said, it appears to have run its course, so I don’t expect it to go on too much longer.
LikeLike
March 23, 2021 at 6:08 am
1 Kings 22:23 So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours.
• 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
• Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet.
Derek, there is a saying in the church about “reading other peoples mail”.
There are many things in the bible written to many different audiences in various context over thousands of years. Pulling verses out and crying wolf is an easy game to play and a sure fire way to misread the scriptures.
I don’t deny the Lord did any of those things in the verses above. God does not do these things on a whim or if He’s having a bad day. All I can tell you is that many people have strongly and viciously opposed God and His people over the centuries. You just don’t want to find yourself fighting against God. I’m not implying that you are doing this because you are not. Particularly in the OT, judgment was swift. Don’t presume that these prophets spoken of above are some innocent truth seeking people. God knows the intents of the heart.
Why does this not bother me you may ask ? Because I’m a child of God, He doesn’t deal with me on the basis of judgment or punishment. I’m reconciled to Him through Jesus, I don’t need to concern myself with judgment.
Joh 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Naz
LikeLike
March 23, 2021 at 8:00 am
Naz writes,
Whether or not God is a liar is not the topic of this thread, but if you’re going to talk about it, you should at least get Derek’s point. It shouldn’t “bother” you with respect to whatever you think gets you through the gate. His point is that you have no rational basis to accept whatever evidence you appeal to as your assurance due to evidence from the same source that God is dishonest. The answer is not, “Well, I’m saved anyway, so it’s no skin off my nose.” The answer is to show why those verses do not mean what he thinks they mean.
When we tell others that the Bible is infallible truth, we have to have answers for the legitimate objections lodged against that claim, else our appeal to its veracity is not credible.
LikeLike
March 23, 2021 at 1:34 pm
Scalia ………… so since you didn’t say “faith+works=salvation” you didn’t state it in other words/argue for it ? lmao …….. that’s exactly what you first post does my arguing against “faith alone.” and it’s you that’s not only the poster but delusional —- because if you stated your case clearly and answered our relevant questions instead of your diversionary ones the argument would be over in a few back and forth.
LOL ……. if you argue against “faith alone” you are arguing against “not by works.” and if you argue against “not by works” you are arguing for faith+works=salvation.
LOL …… even when you said you proved belief is a work ignoring the contrary evidence (John 6: 27 where Jesus said He will give you/John 6: 44 where Jesus says the Father draws/receiving a gift isn’t work/etc…..) it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand because —- it’s not by works NOT there aren’t any works.
LOL …… and again you ignore the questions which proves you stepped into it and now play the delusional persons other favorite card —– im a bad guy, mean, have no honor, blah blah blah ……. because i beat you at your own game.
LOL …… and you sure did introduce something new as i proved. faith is not listed separate from works. faith is always not included with works because as you stated it’s about which works that need to be with faith.
LOL …… me pointing out your errors here and calling you delusional is nothing i need to apologize for. what’s hilarious is your argument is really calling God a liar so it’s you that should be apologizing and not to me.
LikeLike
March 23, 2021 at 1:38 pm
derekmathias ………. so because that analogy is creepy to non-Christians we shouldn’t use it ? lmao …….. may be that’s the point —- if they find it creepy it drives them away from Jesus and they separate themselves as tares/goats/damned. looks like God thought that analogy out really good.
LikeLike
March 23, 2021 at 2:32 pm
“Derek, I appreciate your post and I will try to answer your last point. I think myself and others here have done enough damage for you to ever remotely consider that God exists and the gospel is true. For that I truly apologize.”
No need to apologize. I’m smart enough to know that the behavior of a religion’s followers is not evidence of whether or not the religion’s claims are true. It’s answers to the important questions that matters most to me.
“To your question as to why God didn’t create a universe where we all make the right choices. Don’t you think this is an exercise in futile speculation ?”
Well…no. I mean, if a politician asked me to vote for him on the promise of fighting corruption, but then I learned he’d been convicted multiple times on corruption charges, I would very much insist on a convincing explanation for why I should trust him. And that’s just a politician asking for one vote. Now imagine a god asking for my eternal devotion and worship! That has to be held to a higher standard, don’t you think?
“Why do you think the answer to this question is imperative in determining whether God is good or not ? What happened to taking responsibility for our own actions ? So God is not good because He has given me a choice to do evil and not only good ? So you are implying that God’s decision to give us a choice that could result in sin makes Him the Author of sin ? it sounds like you want to sacrifice freedom for an artificial utopia.”
I don’t think you’ve truly grasped the magnitude of the problem. Imagine yourself as God and you want to create a universe. You can imagine an INFINITE variety of universes where every possible decision is made. By definition, among those universes there MUST be some where Lucifer didn’t rebel, Adam and Eve didn’t disobey, and so on, right? Because if such universes can’t be imagined, that HAS to mean there is NO CHOICE that could result in those universes.
So you COULD choose one of those universes…but you don’t. You DELIBERATELY choose to create one of the many universes where all the wrong decisions are made and everything goes wrong. It makes no difference whether free will exists, because as God you would know what decisions everyone will make in every universe, and you COULD choose one of the universes you can imagine where all the right decisions happen to be made.
So the fact that you DON’T choose to create one of those “utopian” universes implies something about you. It implies that it is more important to you that sin takes over the world than for people to make the right decisions. Again, because otherwise you would not have chosen to create THIS particular universe. Free will is irrelevant in this case.
Now do you understand the problem?
“There will be no sin and no ability to sin based on my understanding of the scriptures. Not in a robotic fashion that takes away our freedom, but more in the sense of our new nature. Sin will no longer exist and our very being will be transformed to that like Jesus after His resurrection.”
If that’s the case, then why not create all humanity exactly like he wants them to be in heaven? Why play the game of choosing a universe where sin is 100% guaranteed to happen because he KNOWS it will happen, then blame humanity for sinning, and then sending BILLIONS of souls to hell to be tortured forever? God has the power to create a universe he KNOWS will turn out right, or he could simply create heaven filled with the souls he wants WITHOUT committing atrocities…yet he evidently didn’t do any of this. THIS is why I think the evidence leans strongly toward God being evil…because what justification could there possibly be for a GOOD God arranging things to work out this way? “God works in mysterious ways” is just not a sufficient explanation.
“So if you get in the game Derek you will have the universe you’ve always wanted one day ! But Jesus will be on the throne, not Darwin 🙂”
And if I don’t get in the game, I deserve to be tortured forever? If I just be as good a person as I can, helping my fellow humans and trying to make this world a better place for the next generation, I should have my flesh burned off in horrific pain again and again for hundreds, thousands, millions…QUADRILLIONS of years and STILL be only at the beginning of eternity? You don’t see a big problem with that?
(P.S. Darwin gets credit for coming up with a well-supported explanation for the diversity of species, and that’s it. Nobody would even think of worshiping him!)
“The universe is what it is and we are living in it. If I am going to shake my fist at God and say why, that makes me pretty pathetic and I probably think way too much of myself.”
If God is good, and he knows you have serious questions about what you’ve read in the Bible about his behavior, would he blame you for having those questions? It’s not about shaking your fist, it’s about asking questions that are vital to anyone who cares about doing what’s right, not about might.
“When I look at the universe and even the earth itself, frankly it’s humbling.”
Is it? Don’t you believe this universe what created for you? Don’t you believe that you have a special, God-given purpose, and that God will give you paradise as a reward for a personal relationship with him? That doesn’t sound very humble to me.
I, OTOH, see myself as just an insignificant speck in a truly massive universe, the product of physics, chemistry and biology that will live a brief life wandering around on this tiny, insignificant planet…only to die and cease to exist. What could be more humbling than that? 😉
“I can think of many reasons why God would create this universe, but the one that sticks with me the most is having the ultimate free will to choose – freedom, If nothing else God created you with the ultimate characteristic of free will and self determination.”
Well, as I pointed out above, whether or not free will exists is irrelevant, simply because God could have chosen one of the universes he can imagine where everyone happens to make the right choice…with or without free will.
But it gets even worse when you realize that the Bible doesn’t say ANYTHING about people having free will. As I’ve pointed out before, it only says that we make plans…but it’s God who determines EVERYTHING that happens:
• Proverbs 16:4 THE LORD WORKS OUT EVERYTHING to its proper end–even the wicked for the day of disaster. [He doesn’t just determine SOME things, he determines “EVERYTHING,” including what the wicked do.]
• Proverbs 16:9 In their hearts humans plan their course, but THE LORD ESTABLISHES THEIR STEPS. [God even determines our very steps!]
• Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its EVERY DECISION IS FROM THE LORD.
• Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but IT IS THE LORD’S PURPOSE THAT PREVAILS.
• Proverbs 20:24 A PERSON’S STEPS ARE DIRECTED BY THE LORD. HOW THEN CAN ANYONE UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN WAY?
• Proverbs 21:1 In the Lord’s hand THE KING’S HEART IS A STREAM OF WATER THAT HE CHANNELS TOWARD ALL WHO PLEASE HIM.
• Ephesians 1:5 He PREDESTINED us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS PLEASURE AND WILL.
• Ephesians 1:11 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.
• Jeremiah 10:23 LORD, I know that PEOPLE’S LIVES ARE NOT THEIR OWN; IT IS NOT FOR THEM TO DIRECT THEIR STEPS.
• Jeremiah 13:23 Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? NEITHER CAN YOU DO GOOD who are accustomed to doing evil.
• Jeremiah 43:11 He will come and attack Egypt, bringing death to those DESTINED FOR DEATH, captivity to those DESTINED FOR CAPTIVITY, and the sword to those DESTINED FOR THE SWORD.
• Psalm 37:23 A MAN’S STEPS ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE LORD, and the LORD delights in his way. [Evidently God delights in establishing a man’s steps to take the wrong path.]
And so on and so on. Those passages are strong evidence that we are not the ones who decide which choice we make in every decision, God does.
“Even the will to not believe He exists despite the obvious evidence from the creation that God exists (Romans 1:19-21). …”
I think Rom 1:18 summarizes your point nicely, so here it is:
• Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, WHO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH BY THEIR WICKEDNESS”
But at the risk of providing yet another example of where the Bible becomes a game of “yeah, but THIS passages says…,” I’ll point out:
• Proverbs 16:4 THE LORD WORKS OUT EVERYTHING to its proper end—even the wicked for the day of disaster. [He doesn’t just determine SOME things, he determines “EVERYTHING,” including what the wicked do.]
• Psalm 58:3 EVEN FROM BIRTH THE WICKED GO ASTRAY; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.
So if God determines who will be wicked and who won’t, and people are wicked from birth, then God has to be the one who is causing the truth to be suppressed, right? That does not imply anyone has the free will to not believe God exists.
“I know that will not sit well with you as here is a passage telling you that its clear and obvious that God created the universe and that you have no excuse to deny His existence. More than that, it calls you futile, foolish and darkened in your heart. That’s tough on the ego, I know. No wonder you are so adamant to argue your point.”
🙂 It actually doesn’t bother me at all, simply because I know it’s not true. I know this because belief is not a choice. If you don’t believe me, try to will yourself to truly believe in Vishnu, Zeus or even Santa Claus for five minutes. You can’t, right? That’s because belief or lack of belief is something that occurs AUTOMATICALLY depending on a variety of subconscious processes of the brain. If your unconscious standards for belief are met, you WILL believe, whether you want to or not. If those standards are NOT met, you WON’T believe, whether you want to or not. Despite people often saying things like, “I choose to believe that it’s safe,” we simply don’t have the power to change our beliefs. The best we can do is expose ourselves to situations, evidence, education, etc. (even brainwashing) that may or may not shift our unconscious standards.
“You would probably say the same to me about Evolution and don’t understand why I can’t see that its obviously true.”
Well, despite my rather extensive education in evolution science, I can’t claim to know all the supportive evidence for evolution simply because it incorporates SO MANY sciences, from biology to geology to paleontology to ethology…the list goes on and on, and there are even more sub-specialties within them (primatology, radiometry, dendrochronology, palynology, etc.). So how can I expect people who have had little exposure to evolution science to understand the evidence? And if your education was by creationists, I wouldn’t expect you to have an accurate view of the science. I am, however, pretty adept at summarizing the evidence…but again, only if you’re interested. For example, I have dozens of different dating techniques alone that show the universe to be older than 6,000-10,000 years old.
“I’m intrigued that you think if I carefully studied the evolutionary theory that I would somehow convert.”
I think you misunderstood me. Studying evolutionary theory wouldn’t necessarily have any impact on your being a Christian; it would only (most probably) cause you to accept that evolutionary theory is true. There are PLENTY of Christians who accept evolutionary theory, including the head of the NIH and Genome Project, Francis Collins, and one of the world’s most influential paleontologists who is also a Pentecostal preacher, Robert Bakker. In fact, most Christians accept evolution and most people who accept evolution are Christian, since it’s compatible with old earth creationism and theistic evolution. The only form of Christianity thoroughly incompatible with evolution is young earth creationism, since it contradicts too much evidence.
“Knowing your manner of discussion, at this point you will tell me that you clearly have declared God evil from various passages of scripture and that your presentation of evolutionary “facts” are clear and obvious observations from science and are indisputable. I would retort and say the God of the bible said He created the universe and His words are indisputable. Moreover I would contend that the scientific “facts” are disputable and have been misappropriated by flawed human beings.”
Well, science doesn’t actually declare ANY explanation indisputable. In fact, the principle job of a scientist developing a hypothesis or theory is to seek to DISPROVE his own idea (because if he makes a significant mistake, the other scientists who will test his work will find and expose it). That’s exactly why science has been so successful–wrong ideas get exposed, and claims made that can’t be tested are irrelevant to science. That’s quite different from religion, which declares certain truths sacrosanct and discourages attempts to disprove them.
“And back and forth we go. Your manner to stick to so-called observable and scientific facts is contrary to my claim of appealing to a transcendent being like God. So you operate by sight and I operate by faith.”
That appears to be true.
“Behavior is not the end game, relationship is.”
Ah, but the problem is whether one wants a relationship with someone who commits atrocities.
“The perfect Universe you’ve always wanted awaits you Derek ….”
Agreed. And I’m living in it right now. 🙂
LikeLike
March 23, 2021 at 2:34 pm
Paul the Poster writes,
The Poster’s charge is that I changed my argument, and that is demonstrably false. If I argued in my first post against “faith alone,” then in order for me to have changed my argument, I have to argue for faith alone, and I’ve never done that. The post he references is #10 which says, in part:
I think this should be amended to say that “good works alone cannot save us or keep us saved.” Moreover, your continuation that trust in Jesus “alone” saves us is directly discordant with New Testament teaching:
John 6 (ESV)
28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
Here, Christ specifically defines belief as a work, and this is of course obvious since believing is an act of the will. In other words, one is doing something in order to obtain something else. Unless you’re a Calvinist of some sort and believe that faith is imposed upon you irresistibly, human agents can exercise or withhold belief which is why it is a work.
So, when the Bible tells us that we are not saved by “works,” we either have a blatantly inconsistent record or it is a specific kind of work that we are not saved by. And since most if not all of the professing Christians on this site believe in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, the latter option is the only reasonable interpretation.
I very clearly proved that faith is a work and that it is definitionally in the same category as other works because it is doing something to obtain something. Yet, whether we believe, repent, help old ladies cross the street, and win thousands to Christ, those things, in themselves, cannot save us. God is our savior, so in spite of anything we DO, without Him, nobody can be saved. So, since faith is definitionally in the same category as works, it is incoherent to argue that faith alone saves without works.
I also made it abundantly clear that the Bible definitely states that we are saved by faith and not by works. But since Christ defines belief as a work, and since the Poster’s own definition of faith corresponds with works, the Bible is then clearly referring to a type or a kind of work that we’re not saved by. As an example, I cited the passage which says that God will pour out His Spirit upon “all flesh.” By flesh, the Bible isn’t referring to dolphins, peacocks or ants. We know that it’s referring to human flesh, and even then, that’s not referring to “all” humans. Thus, “all flesh” is restricted to a particular zone of meaning. The same must be true for “works,” due to the Bible’s own definition of the terms.
Now, whether or not one agrees with my presentation, I have not changed it one iota. Nothing in anything I’ve argued switches from “not faith alone” to “faith alone,” or from “faith+works=salvation” to “faith alone.” Paul needs to sue his reading teachers for malpractice, for they apparently never taught him reading comprehension.
And this is blatantly dishonest because I replied to that multiple times. Moreover, if you concede arguendo that faith is a work, you cannot cite another passage to “disprove” the other one. If the Bible contradicts itself, then we have no business citing it as an authority on any doctrinal issue. Of course, the Bible doesn’t contradict itself, so when Christ calls faith a work (as He clearly did for obvious reasons), and if He makes faith a condition for salvation (as He clearly did), then it follows that even if we’re robots who are given faith, we’re still doing something. The absence of free will has no bearing on whether a work is being done.
LikeLike
March 23, 2021 at 2:34 pm
“Whether or not God is a liar is not the topic of this thread, but if you’re going to talk about it, you should at least get Derek’s point. It shouldn’t “bother” you with respect to whatever you think gets you through the gate. His point is that you have no rational basis to accept whatever evidence you appeal to as your assurance due to evidence from the same source that God is dishonest. The answer is not, “Well, I’m saved anyway, so it’s no skin off my nose.” The answer is to show why those verses do not mean what he thinks they mean.
When we tell others that the Bible is infallible truth, we have to have answers for the legitimate objections lodged against that claim, else our appeal to its veracity is not credible.”
Bravo, Scalia, that’s exactly where I’m coming from. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
LikeLike
March 23, 2021 at 2:36 pm
I forgot to close a blockquote, so the sentence which begins with, “So, how are the words believe…” are mine with one more blockquote from Paul with the remaining text being mine.
LikeLike
March 23, 2021 at 3:05 pm
Well, my bad. Actually the sentence, “There isn’t a question the Poster has asked me that I have directly or indirectly answered above, most if not all of them multiple times,” is the beginning of my reply in Post 166.
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 5:24 am
“I, OTOH, see myself as just an insignificant speck in a truly massive universe, the product of physics, chemistry and biology that will live a brief life wandering around on this tiny, insignificant planet…only to die and cease to exist. What could be more humbling than that? ”
““The perfect Universe you’ve always wanted awaits you Derek ….”
Agreed. And I’m living in it right now”
Derek, I’ve included 2 of your comments above. To summarize the perfect universe you are living in results in your ultimate non-existence.
I am obviously not able to provide you with credible objections to your questions according to Scalia. So I would suggest you pick this up with him.
Naz
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 8:26 am
Now, Naz, I never said that you’re incapable of providing adequate answers to Derek’s objections. It just seemed to me that you weren’t getting his point. And don’t even bother passing him off to me because I’m not interested in debating him. If I felt that such an effort were worthwhile, I’d definitely do so (in the appropriate thread, that is), but since it would be a sheer waste of time, I’m not interested.
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 10:28 am
Scalia, no problem. Thanks for making your intentions clear.
Naz
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 4:48 pm
“Derek, there is a difference between “using” Christianity to justify yourself and genuine human weakness. To commit some atrocity knowing you can just ask God for forgiveness shows this person is just using Christ as a license to sin. Like Pope Augustine, he waited until his death bed to get baptized so he could get all his sins forgiven and secure his salvation. These types of people are not genuine Christians and are using Christianity as a loop hole to justify themselves.”
But Naz, who is to say they are not genuine Christians? They believe they’re doing what God wants, just as you do, and both of you can point to scripture to support your claims. So what you’re doing is committing a “no true Scotsman” fallacy: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/No-True-Scotsman, which is not a valid argument.
“As for judging who is a true believer and who is not, that’s God’s job not ours. We need to be careful to judge prematurely without knowing all the facts.”
And yet that is what you’re doing, don’t you see?
“A good number of those who penned the scriptures were not shining examples of good if you look at their track record.”
Oh, I’m aware. Along with the examples you mentioned, Moses said God ordered him to tell his people to murder their friends and family…and then he made them priests for doing so:
• Exodus 32:27-29 Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
And those accounts really don’t bother you at all? To me it’s just horrific that God would order such a thing (or that Moses would follow such an order). I can’t wrap my head around the notion that such behavior from the deity Christians worship is considered acceptable, when we wouldn’t accept such behavior from mere flawed humans. I get that might makes right when you’re all powerful and nobody can successfully challenge you, but shouldn’t the god someone worships be held to a higher standard than the most evil human beings?
“However, when dealing with the question of eternity, we cannot look at the degree of our sins to determine our salvation because our salvation is not based on the degree of our sins or our overall performance. You may think this is not fair or is a bad system that can be manipulated, but it is the only system that gives a chance because every person is born in a spiritually dead condition without Christ.”
I get that argument, but you’ve yet to explain how God isn’t 100% at fault for people being born spiritually dead when he chose THIS universe to create, rather than one he could surely imagine where everyone happens to make all the “right” decisions.
“We don’t need behavior improvement/reform lessons , we need the life of Christ living in us. That is what saves us. In light of a perfect and Holy God, we all fall short, not just Hitler and Stalin. Ghandi falls short too. And so do you and I. Nobody is going to brag in front of Almighty God about their morals and good works. Is it fair ? Maybe not, but it’s God’s way of levelling the playing field.”
I really don’t get that. If God plans everything, as the Bible says over and over again, then the ONLY reason people fall short is because he deliberately created them to do so.
What I’m seeking is arguments that adequately address these issues rather than simply dismiss them.
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 5:22 pm
“Anyway, once we have a consistent definition of “good,” and if we can prove that God is infinitely good, then it follows that if evil exists, there is a morally justifiable reason for evil.”
We do have good definitions for good and evil that pretty much everyone can understand and accept: Good is behavior that results in a state characterized by health, happiness and prosperity. Evil is behavior that deliberately and unnecessarily causes harm or suffering. Based on God’s behavior in the Bible, it seems to me the only way to define God as good (much less infinitely good!) is to redefine good to be something dramatically different–like whatever God says is good is good, or the like. But such a redefinition would render the terms good and evil meaningless as far as humans are concerned, and we would have to come up with different words for the behaviors I listed above…only to end up with the same problem as before redefining the terms.
“The question of God’s existence, then, cannot turn on the problem of evil.”
Agreed, because even if God is evil it wouldn’t mean he doesn’t exist.
“Moreover, how is it that a finite human being, who lives some 70-75 years on the earth, can look at the breadth of eternity and make pronouncements on the ultimate reason for Instance A or Instance B? All of us recognize that limited vision or knowledge impedes full understanding. The fact that we cannot figure out the reason for X does not imply that there is no reason for it.”
We have to make decisions based on what we KNOW, not what we don’t know. When we see apparent evil, the rational response isn’t to simply ignore it or assume there’s a good explanation for it. It needs to be addressed, or we risk “selling out our souls,” so to speak, by worshiping and enabling evil.
“The whole thrust of the argument from evil is that there has to be some universal standard in order to diagnose a universal wrong, but without God, there is no universal standard.”
Are the definitions I gave universal standards? I don’t think so (because people can honestly disagree on behaviors that are ambiguous), but I don’t think that it matters whether morality is absolute or subjective. If it turns out forcing people into slavery is a “universal standard” because God endorses and even orders it, but we continue to find slavery abhorrent because of the definitions of good and evil I listed above, then universal standards are meaningless TO US.
“If we’re nothing but molecules in motion, then there is no universal moral implication.”
But so what? What matters is what our society values that promote well being. We can and have encountered societies with values in conflict with our own (radical Islam, for instance), and because we of course value our own values, we fight for them. But that doesn’t mean the values of other societies are universally wrong, only that they are anathema to our own values. The problem here is that the values of God in the Bible are anathema to our own values.
“And if we merely assume a universal standard to evaluate “God,” we overlook the fact that if God is infinitely good, there has to be a morally justified reason for evil.”
That sounds to me like putting the cart before the horse. You don’t start with the conclusion and then look for evidence to justify that conclusion; you start with the evidence and use it to come to a conclusion.
“Again, the question turns on whether God’s goodness can be proved. If so, the objection collapses. If not, then there is no God.”
Or God is simply evil. My equation is thus:
1. God exists
2. God is good
3. God is all powerful
4. Evil exists
But you can only pick three.
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 5:34 pm
“of course it does because if you don’t understand you end up like derekmathias —- stating you’ve just proved God is a liar …… which is delusional.”
I don’t mind you calling me names, but you don’t help your own credibility when you make claims that you are either unwilling or unable to support. If the passages I posted saying God lies to people mean something other than what they say, then provide your evidence. Otherwise, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and my position remains undisputed. And if the passages I mentioned mean what they say, then none of the scripture you’ve posted can be trusted to be true.
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 5:45 pm
“Actually, I’ve “hurled” very few insults. The overwhelming majority of my content is scriptural analysis and argument analysis. And if you’ve actually read the posts, you should know that Paul is incapable of putting an argument together, and his posts are entirely devoid of real argument analysis. There is no real comparison.”
I agree the content and tone of your posts is far better than Paul’s. His seemingly obsessive need to post LOL at the beginning of every paragraph just makes him seem childish, and his constant use of ad hominem attacks means he’s relying on logical fallacies instead of rational argument. That being said, you are sometimes abrasive and insulting, as Naz has also noted, although nowhere near to the degree Paul is.
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 7:57 pm
derekmathais ……….. LOL ………. i have great arguments ….. but because of your problems you can’t see them. if you could prove the God of the bible is a liar, you can’t but even if you could —- that would only prove the god the bible is describing is not God.
LOL ……… again i use lol because it’s yours and others arguments that are childish not mine. and like all you people —- still waiting for a straight forward answer from you to my questions. whether here or in the other posts.
people like Naz, TR, Joe Chamberlain, myself state our positions and answer questions clearly and admit to the facts you present w/o playing the silly games you guys play.
good for Naz and TR that they can address your stupidity w/o telling you that you are cre cre but that’s not how i roll.
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 8:01 pm
LOL ………… silly question, i can pick all 4 because since God is all powerful He can fix what evil desstroyed.
1. God exists
2. God is good
3. God is all powerful
4. Evil exists
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 9:04 pm
Scalia ………. lmao —- that did prove you changed your argument. and as i correctly showed it was no problem for my position. since i have the truth i can pivot and say okay even if believing in Jesus is a work all our evidence that it’s “not by works” still holds true. because “trust in Jesus “alone” saves” means “not by works” not that there aren’t any works or “faith+works=salvation” as the argument is always stated until you changed it to works=salvation.
LOL ………. but again it’s irrelevant if you are right about believing being a work because we proved it’s “not by works.” because we have verses saying the Father gives you the desire to seek Him. so the source of belief in God is a gift ultimately and therefore not a work. as in not a work as something you earned.
LOL ……… but there you go again being dishonest —– even by agreeing with your position “believing” is a work that doesn’t disprove not by works. because none of our works are the reason we get saved. and if you are right belief is a work all that does is just change the formula to works=salvation. that because if Jesus didn’t do what He did we can’t be saved. that’s why ilmao at you —- you say you understand our position but you don’t.
LOL ……… you keep trying to prove your works will save you and that’s a false gospel. it’s not us talking past you or you talking past us —- it’s you having a totally different argument than us and not being able to see that. you can’t earn Church membership which guarantees your salvation and even those saved at the great white throne judgment aren’t saved by their works they too are saved by Jesus’ works. that’s the only way otherwise you could boast.
LOL …….. it’s you that have no honor and no shame and are delusional. all you have proved is what we all agree with …….. a true/saving faith will produce fruit/salutary acts/good works. you make the same delusional error 99% of roman catholics make —– arguing against a false/dead faith=salvation which is just as much a heresy as your works=salvation heresy.
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 9:49 pm
Naz ………. fyi just in case you keep on discussing — the typical argument from their side is works are the ceremonial law, so not by works is dismissed by them. since he’s not clear i won’t say if scalia held that position or not but scalia is now sounding like —- since his opinion is believing is a work that means “not by works” doesn’t mean “not by works.” hilarious if so because it’s not by your works which as stated means even if believing is a work that does not disprove “not by works.”
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 9:54 pm
@Derek, you write,
A couple of things first: 1) That’s not the topic of this thread, so further discussion along that line is discordant with the administrator’s wishes. 2) As you know, I have no interest in debating you, so even if Jason doesn’t have a problem with it, it’ll stop here.
“Good” and “evil” have very longstanding definitions and said definitions have been held by the significant majority of Christians for a very long time. It has nothing to do with Euthyphro’s Dilemma (arbitrary commands or a standard apart from God) or redefining the terms to placate popular opinion or to fit the biblical record. It is objective with no imposition of subjective values.
Thus, if it can be proved that God is infinitely good, or even if His goodness is assumed arguendo, the occurrence of evil, even great evil, cannot disprove His existence (as you acknowledge). If evil occurs, it follows that there must be a morally justifiable reason for its occurrence if God exists.
Of course that’s true, and of course that’s not what I’ve done. I was commenting to Naz, not you, and I wasn’t trying to prove anything to him (because he agrees with me in that regard); I was repeating to him what we both know based on our understanding of morality.
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 10:02 pm
@Derek, you write:
Guilty as charged. I, too, have been called lots of names on these boards and in other places. That kind of banter doesn’t bother me. I just consider it par for the course. And so long as a fella (or gal) argues in good faith, they can call me all the names they want within the parameters of a blog’s TOS.
LikeLike
March 25, 2021 at 6:49 pm
Scalia ………. LOL, but im only “abrasive” to people like you and derekmathais because you people are. at least in this post derekmathais isn’t with holding his position like he did when i asked him about abortion last time.
but calling you, derekmathais and people like you delusional is not abrasive or even name calling it’s stating a fact. calling you stupid or an idiot would be name calling because you aren’t but an intelligent person can be delusional. i can say you are delusional because we pointed out your errors and you still hold to them while saying the problem is ours even saying it’s delusional to believe God won’t abandon His child or as others have said God is a liar/evil.
LOL …….. i can’t be delusional because no one from your side has refuted our evidence and like your side always does you refuse to answer our straight forward questions that would expose you. still waiting for any works righteous heretic or some one just arguing that position to disprove …..
– we proved faith alone doesn’t mean there aren’t works.
– we proved there are 2 kinds of faith and a true/saving faith will go hand in
hand with law keeping and salutary acts/good works.
– we proved the bible condemns those that say their works saved them.
– we proved if you left a bible believing Church/can’t understand biblical truth
you were not saved.
– we proved works can be present w/o contradicting “not by works.”
– we proved the works do not refer to ceremonial works of the law. which
hilariously your argument that believing is a work supports us.
– we proved the works present do not disprove “not by works.”
– we proved once saved, sealed, born again, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, a
bride of Christ, claimed by God, etc …….. God won’t abandon you.
LOL ……….. all your side has ever proven, which we agreed with, if you are saved “works” should be present.
LikeLike
March 26, 2021 at 9:57 am
@Paul the Poster, I was content to let you have the last word, but it appears that you want the last word, period, on this thread (that is, the last person to post). Now, that’s of course fine with me if it means that much to you, but your content here prompts at least one more post from me. You write,
What questions have I not answered? Please list them. If I missed them, it was not deliberate. I’d be happy to answer any question that I’ve overlooked, excepting my email address or the contact information of my former church. I left that assembly more than 40 years ago. The pastor has long since passed away and it’s extremely unlikely that anybody there while I was attending either still attends or remembers me.
There’s nothing to “prove” here because nobody disputes the assertion that works must accompany a Christian’s life. What I argued is that your works are discordant with that view since you lie repeatedly and act in a deliberately insulting manner as if it shores up your bad arguments. And your excuse that you’re trying to “help” me or “drive me deeper” into delusion is an obvious lie because nobody with any brains thinks that they’re really trying to help somebody with repeated LOLs and repeated accusations of delusion. And as a Christian, you really want to drive somebody deeper into damnation? You’re sick.
Again, I’ve more than once stated the typical OSAS position that works accompany faith, so there’s nothing to “prove” in that regard. The issue is whether or not faith is a work. You deny that and I affirm it. Since Jesus called belief a work, that ends the matter, plain and simple. Moreover, your own definition of faith and works entails the same, so even you indirectly affirm it (though not intentionally, of course).
Again, not disputed in a particular sense. Works of morality or works of the law cannot save anybody, so that’s not a point of contention. Even belief in Christ cannot save us in itself. It is ultimately God who saves, so whether a person believes, repents, gets baptized, refrains from robbing banks or murder, that in itself doesn’t save anybody. The key is the savior, and that brings everything together.
You “proved” no such thing. I didn’t leave a “Bible-believing” church because they taught false doctrine with respect to OSAS, the new birth, and the Trinity. I get it that you believe otherwise, but assertion is not proof. You simply stated your belief that OSAS is right so anybody who believes what you think is the truth isn’t saved, but again, that’s not “proof.”
And again, that’s not a point of contention. That’s like saying, “We proved that you need to breathe oxygen to live!” Well, that’s wonderful, but no sane person disputes that. I clearly elucidated multiple times that both you and Naz affirm (at least on paper) that works are expressive of genuine faith and that “not by works” refers to what actually saves a person (faith). Really, Poster, you took the time to itemize a bunch of things not in dispute? For what purpose? You’re either trying to get the last word by saying a bunch of nothing, you’re deliberately lying about the dispute to make your position look better, or you don’t have a sweet clue what we’ve been debating. None of these options puts a feather in your cap.
Since my argument from the beginning has been that faith is a work, so that our not being saved by works refers to a different kind of work, thus PROVING that I never changed my argument, your claim of “proof” hangs irrelevantly in midair.
You proved no such thing. You either baldly asserted your belief or you attempted to quote a handful of verses that you thought supported that belief (e.g. the fornicator in Corinth or our being “married” to the Lord). You cannot legitimately claim to have proven an argument when you’ve left a bunch of objections on the table. You have your nerve to wag your finger at me for not answering your questions when you’ve deliberately avoided addressing the numerous scriptural objections I’ve lodged against your so-called “proofs.” Don’t show me the assertion; show me the PROOF.
LikeLike
March 26, 2021 at 6:22 pm
Scalia ………… LMAO —– that’s exactly what our evidence proved. you proved you are correct like derekmathais says he proved God is a liar/evil.
LOL ……….. and since you haven’t answered and refuse to answer the outstanding questions i’ll let you have the last word. but it’s clear to all sane people you are making one of the main errors those professing the works righteous heresy make ……
– faith alone means no works
– ignoring there are 2 types of faith
– not by works means not by works of the ceremonial law
– and your new twist ….. since their are works that proves not by works doesn’t mean not by works
LOL ……… except for your evidence proving works should be present (which we agree with), all of your sides arguments are delusional and you are doing what you delusional people always do —- don’t answer our questions because even though you are delusional you are smart enough to see if you answer our questions you’ll expose your errors.
LikeLike
March 26, 2021 at 7:48 pm
Just as I thought. You lied when you said that I didn’t answer any questions. And the rest of your post is nothing but a repetition of your drivel.
LikeLike
March 27, 2021 at 7:36 am
“Again, not disputed in a particular sense. Works of morality or works of the law cannot save anybody, so that’s not a point of contention. Even belief in Christ cannot save us in itself. It is ultimately God who saves, so whether a person believes, repents, gets baptized, refrains from robbing banks or murder, that in itself doesn’t save anybody. The key is the savior, and that brings everything together.”
Scalia, I’m curious about your statement above. You stated that “works of morality or works of the law morality cannot save anybody”. However, you think that somehow when we combine this with Christ they can save us. This is not biblical theology but something you concocted to fit your interpretation of the scriptures.
If my refraining from immoral acts cannot save me, how can refraining from immoral acts “keep” me saved ? If that’s the case, then ultimately we are co-redeemers with Christ in keeping our salvation until the end. You said it yourself, that works of morality cannot save anybody. How can those same works then “keep” me saved ? Jesus becomes nothing but a side dish in this type of salvation with the main course being works of morality/law.
The logic is flawed here. I know you are trying to reconcile scriptures like Hebrews 6:4-6 and 1 Cor 6:9-10, but we cannot ignore logic. If your theology isn’t logical, then you need to reconcile those scriptures in a different light.
This is the crux of our divide here. I will maintain that a person cannot lose their salvation by performing immoral acts no more than they can keep their salvation by refraining from immoral acts. This is not license to sin and there are many scriptures explaining the real reason “why” we should maintain good works.
Anyway you slice it, in the end pragmatically you are your own savior. Sure we can deny that by saying that God will forgive me when I “ask” for forgiveness, but really that forgiveness is based on my refraining from immoral acts isn’t it ? If so, then my salvation is mostly or at least partly based on my refraining from immoral acts. This totally contradicts your statement that works of morality cannot save a person. The guy in Matthew 7 is looking pretty good with this theology as he brags about this works.
This leaves us right back to a law-based, works based salvation. You can’t escape it and there is no spin you can put on it to avoid the indisputable logic of the matter. We cannot just “add” Jesus to make it all better. This is all you are doing, you have taken the law and added Jesus to it. This is Pentecostalism 101.
Don’t you see the contradiction here ?
Naz
LikeLike
March 27, 2021 at 12:30 pm
Naz ……….. no they can’t see the problem. ilmao but im not being facetious …. these works righteous heretics are delusional as in spiritually as in the bible describes a “strong delusion.” they can’t be ignorant because we’ve explained their error(s). see that’s why they never state their position clearly …. all they do is keep arguing “faith alone” is false. because it’s not a yes or no argument. and as long as they don’t show their hand they can remain in their delusion hiding behind one of their strawman arguments.
on a side note ……. have a blessed Nisan 14th
LikeLike
March 27, 2021 at 3:00 pm
Naz writes,
After 186 posts previous to yours, I don’t really know why you’re curious. Whether or not you believe what we do, our position has been well-known for a very long time. I didn’t “concoct” anything I’ve argued here.
I explained this above, so why are you asking about it again, especially since you said that you wanted to agree to disagree and that we didn’t need to argue about it. And if you don’t remember the answer to the question, then are you going to forget it again when I answer again? What’s the purpose of asking if you’re simply going to forget what I say?
There are unbelievers who live moral lives. I know atheists who are more honest than some so-called Christian participants on this blog. They are faithful to their wives, they wouldn’t steal a dime, and have never harmed anybody to my knowledge. However, those admirable traits, in themselves, cannot save anybody. It’s nice to help old ladies cross the street, but whether you do or don’t, that has no bearing on your salvation. Everybody must be born again, and unless God accepts us, we’re lost regardless what we do. Surrendering our lives to Christ and recognizing Him as Lord is vital. Again, whether or not you currently believe that, it’s no secret that’s what the vast majority of Christians believe. Man has salvific free will (you agree with that to the point of salvation, but we contend that remains throughout a person’s life, and interestingly, Paul the Poster disagrees with you here, but that’s apparently okay since you’re a temporary ally). He can choose to accept the gospel call or he can choose to reject it. If he embraces it, he can decide afterwards that he doesn’t want it and walk away. I’ve not nearly exhausted the scriptural arguments we rely on to justify that stance, and there’s no point exhausting them here because you’ve deliberately ignored most of the ones I have offered. Nonetheless, the position is longstanding which makes it curious why you’re still curious.
The reason why works become relevant is because God makes them relevant from the beginning of our walk with Him. He decrees that obedience to the gospel, which includes belief, is necessary for salvation (Rom. 10:16), and that makes the faith requirement God’s law. Indeed, a work is something a person does in order to obtain something else (whatever that something else is). Believing, receiving, accepting, trusting, relying, and surrender are all verbs which means that they are all acts. Thus, faith doesn’t include act, it IS act, and since act is synonymous with “do,” it cannot but be a work. It is thus obvious that we must DO something to be saved. Repentance is also a prerequisite to the remission of sins (Lk. 24:47, Acts 2:38, 3:19) and is thus necessary for salvation (Acts 11:18, 17:30). None of us disputes that having the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation (John 3:5, Rom. 8:9), but the Bible makes it equally clear that obedience precedes God’s giving of His Spirit:
Acts 5
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
God doesn’t give the Holy Spirit and then we obey. Rather, we obey and He gives the Holy Spirit. Saved by grace? Of course, but notice again:
Hebrews 5
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
The Holy Spirit does not come and salvation is not obtained unless obedience occurs. This is the plain, straightforward teaching of the Scriptures. And if it takes act and obedience to receive salvation, it takes the same to keep it:
Hebrews 6
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
2 Peter 3
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
2 Timothy 2
12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
1 Corinthians 15
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
I could quote a lot more, but the Bible makes it obvious beyond ambiguity that this is not “concocted” by man; it is the decree of God. You don’t have to go digging between the lines and twist yourself into a pretzel to discover this either. It is written plainly and openly so that a child could understand it.
Actually, the terminology you affirm means that YOU can’t escape the “indisputable logic of the matter” that faith is doing something in order to obtain everlasting life. I have affirmed over and over that we are saved by faith and not by works (as the Scriptures also plainly teach), but since faith is a work and that we are clearly required to live holy lives to keep salvation, then the works we are not saved by are a kind of work. Your contention that this makes us the savior instead of God is absurd, for without the enabling power of the Holy Spirit, nobody would be able to live for God. And the fact that I hang onto the life preserver that’s thrown to me does not mean that I take credit for being pulled out of the water.
Now, are you also aiming for the last word like Paul or were you telling the truth that this didn’t need to be debated and that you wanted to agree to disagree? Recall that I never made those statements, but since you did, I ask you again, were you lying when you made them? Everything I’ve written in this post has been argued above. Again, you ignored most of it and your attempts to rebut a few of them fizzled out. Are you asking that we keep repeating ourselves?
LikeLike
March 27, 2021 at 3:36 pm
Scalia, no I’m good. You’ve shown exactly where you stand on the matter and we can stop there. I still maintain that your reasoning is flawed so lets leave it at that.
Your tone is getting angry again so we better stop.
Naz
LikeLike
March 28, 2021 at 7:45 am
Paul, I don’t think it’s a delusion, I think it’s a pandemic in the church.
My Post 187 clearly shows the logical flaws in the theology presented here. I understand why Scalia believes what he does and I don’t condemn him for it. He is a true believer and this is how he understands the scriptures. His arguments are not in vain, as it allows us to test our understanding of the bible.
All I can say is that this exercise has further confirmed for me that my understanding of salvation is sound and also reminds me of where I came from.
Paul, I think enough has been said on this matter.
May you also have a blessed Nisan 14th.
Naz
LikeLike
March 28, 2021 at 11:44 am
Naz, fair enough and i used to agree with you. because when discussing these types of issues with some one like you it was clear you could see my position even though you didn’t agree with me. so i just figured every one was like you and me ……. but i started running into so called “Christians” that could not do that.
i agree we’ve beat this horse to death and to be perfectly honest i knew it was unless to try and convince scalia of his error. but briefly here is an example of what i mean ……
i tried to find the discussion i had with a roman catholic on another channel about this topic but since i couldn’t i can’t post the link. my comments would’ve been deleted most likely anyway because my Paul V gmail account was suspended again a few months ago.
anyway, he made the same silly faith+works arguments ive heard many times and after numerous back and forth he finally admitted he was arguing against “faith alone” because he defined it as faith only —- no works, even though i initially explained that’s not what we mean by “faith alone” and we also agree a false/dead faith won’t save you. so i thought great at first he just misunderstood the argument and now that i explained …… we can move forward and come to an understanding, i even showed him a Catholic Answers ~7 minute video which agreed with me. nope —– he just rambled on and on faith alone meant no works and i was just cre cre. some have explained it as how some one else processes information but even so that has to be as the bible explains a spiritual delusion, it can’t be just talking past each other/what i call the babel effect or stubbornness.
thanks i did and if you celebrate the usual way —– have a blessed holy week and easter
LikeLike
March 28, 2021 at 4:31 pm
Naz writes,
I’d like to know where you showed the “logical flaws” in my argument. Post 187 merely restates what you prefer to believe. It has nothing to do with argument analysis or highlighting any inferential mistakes in my reasoning.
Two general arguments are offered in the previous posts along the following lines: 1) What constitutes Christian initiation (how a person becomes a genuine Christian). 2) Can a Christian lose salvation?
I won’t repeat my arguments here. I’ve repeated them multiple times already, but I will offer advice on how to rebut an argument. You’re not showing any kind of logical flaw in a person’s reasoning when you fail to engage said person’s argument. Restating your position as if it speaks for itself does nothing to show another person’s inferential mistakes. Ignoring most of a person’s arguments concedes the points by default. Ridiculing the other person by repeating your talking points does not amount to a “refutation.” When you reply to an argument but ignore the rebuttal to your reply, you cede the point by default.
You take a person’s premises in an argument and show why they are either false or why the conclusion does not follow said premises. Any mistake in reasoning affects the cogency of an argument which is what we call a fallacy. Saying that a person is wrong because he doesn’t agree with your system has no effect on his argument and is question begging. That isn’t my opinion; that’s Logic 101. And that’s why I’ve endeavored to engage every one of the counter arguments above by showing why they are either discordant with the biblical text or why the reasoning itself is irrelevant to the point.
It is obvious that my interlocutors disagree with my argument, but it is sheer folly to allege that my flaws have been demonstrated when engagement has been infrequent at best.
LikeLike
March 28, 2021 at 5:16 pm
“I won’t repeat my arguments here. I’ve repeated them multiple times already, but I will offer advice on how to rebut an argument.”
Scalia, thanks for the advice but this is a free form blog and we don’t need to comply to any mode of argument/rebuttal protocol. If that displeases you, then you will need to learn to allow people to post as they see fit instead of trying to impose your constraints or preferences on how we reply. If that in your mind makes our arguments unsatisfactory then so be it. Not everyone is as eloquent in speech and writing as yourself so you need to accept others as they are.
As to the topic at hand, to be brief, the logical flaw is that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you say that works cannot save a person, then on the other hand, you constrain a Christian to perform all sorts of works in order to stay or get saved. If that’s not a logical flaw I don’t know what is. Your attempt to classify faith as a work in order to prove your point is weak at best. In doing so, you’ve transformed faith into something that is no longer faith, but rules, regulations and requirements.
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
The only work we need to do is believe in Jesus Christ, just like the thief on the cross. But I’m sure you’ll find some loopholes to get him into Hell somehow.
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
Naz
LikeLike
March 28, 2021 at 6:09 pm
Well, Naz, it isn’t a matter of imposing my personal constraints on anybody. It’s standard logical procedure. Anybody can claim as the day is long that they’ve refuted a point of view, but nobody can logically claim that when they’ve failed to address said person’s arguments. If you feel “constrained” by facts of reasoning, that’s your problem. You dodged the arguments because you know you cannot refute them which is why you haven’t been arguing in good faith.
And your latest “both sides of your mouth” remark illustrates the point perfectly. You know good and well what I meant by works, in themselves, including faith, cannot save anybody because I explicitly explained why. You then dishonestly ignore my explanation and reduce it to my saying that works cannot save, but works are required to be saved. When you have to misrepresent an argument in order to “win,” you’re admitting that my real argument is both stronger than yours and that you’re incapable of addressing what I actually said.
It’s not a matter of being as articulate as I; it’s a matter of honestly.
LikeLike
March 29, 2021 at 5:26 am
I’ve refuted your arguments, shown your circular and illogical reasoning and have done all of this honestly and in good faith. All you have done is criticized my responses.
I can go back and point out many places where you did not respond to my arguments or objections, but I won’t. Maybe because I don’t mind giving you the freedom to respond as you wish, or maybe because I’m not a law enforcer.
Your arguments are weak and really portray a version of Christianity, if you want to call it that, that has driven people into bondage and frankly driven away unbelievers from the gospel.
Your manner and conduct on this thread is a perfect picture of the theology you espouse to, rigid, rule-based and legalistic with little or no grace to be found. That much is clear.
Are we done now ?
Naz
LikeLike
March 29, 2021 at 8:14 am
Naz writes,
You couldn’t have refuted my arguments when you’ve ignored most of them. Silence is not a refutation.
I would sincerely like to know your definition of “many,” because I’m certain that it doesn’t square with either the dictionary (a large number) or most people’s perception. Be that as it may, just name one. Show me just one argument I didn’t reply to, and if you’re able to locate it and it turns out that I truly didn’t reply to it, then I’ll apologize because it was never my intent to ignore anything you’ve argued. Unlike you, I’ll gladly own up to my mistakes. You’re not in a position to say the same thing here because I multiple times told you that you were dodging my arguments with zero effect.
As to your faux “freedom to respond” remark, nobody said that you don’t have the “freedom” to post what you wish within this site’s TOS. But when you claim to have “refuted” arguments, it’s fair game to point out that you’re either being disingenuous or you don’t have a sweet clue what a refutation is. And if you really believe in the freedom of participants to post, then you’d stop complaining when said persons exercise that freedom to criticize your empty claims.
An interesting remark considering that after 2,000 years, the so-called “works-based” gospel retains the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world. That means that they’ve been far more successful in evangelism and retention of people than the OSAS crowd. And please note for your logic-challenged mind, I’m not saying that the majority is always right. I’m specifically challenging your allegation about driving people away from the gospel. History proves that a lot more of these “unbelievers” are flocking to “works-based” churches than to your pet brand. As a matter of fact, we’ve seen first-hand the awful destruction your kind of preaching has wreaked on people’s lives.
You say that because you resent not having free rein to spew your false drivel on a site that does not espouse it. Contrary to your dishonest appeal to “agree to disagree,” you’re obsessed with pushing it at every opportunity here. As you know, I seldom comment on these boards (overall), but I’ll definitely jump in against something so fundamental as this. And whether you like it or not, true Christians will earnestly contend against false doctrine, especially the brand that you espouse because it is so dangerous.
And you’re one to complain about “rigid” when you rigidly adhere to and defend what you believe without a hint of compromise. Are you the pot or kettle? They who are rigid in their doctrinal beliefs are in no position to complain when others are equally rigid.
You tell me. Did you forget that you were the one who wanted to agree to disagree? Did you forget that you were the one who said that we didn’t need to debate this? Are they additional examples of your dishonesty or do you really have major memory issues?
Nonetheless, lest you accuse me of “ignoring” you again, yes, I’ll quit so long as you quit spewing your false doctrine. If you raise it again, I’ll challenge you again. Capiche?
LikeLike
March 30, 2021 at 11:12 am
Naz, well said and sums up the problem nicely ….. “As to the topic at hand, to be brief, the logical flaw is that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you say that works cannot save a person, then on the other hand, you constrain a Christian to perform all sorts of works in order to stay or get saved. If that’s not a logical flaw I don’t know what is. Your attempt to classify faith as a work in order to prove your point is weak at best. In doing so, you’ve transformed faith into something that is no longer faith, but rules, regulations and requirements.”
see that’s why ilmao because some (ie. people that profess works righteousness) won’t admit works save you because we have verses proving that’s not only false but is condemned. that’s why the only answer is our position —- it’s faith alone that saves you but it has to be the correct type of faith —- a true/saving faith and NOT a dead/false faith.
so people like derekmathais that use this to show a contradiction to disprove God use the same arguments as the works righteousness heretics like scalia to prove we are wrong. the difference being derekmathais admits his interpretation of those verses is it’s “by works” therefore he proved the contradiction because other verses say “not by works.” where scalia won’t, can’t admit he really is arguing “by works” also or his delusion will be exposed for all to see.
LikeLike
March 30, 2021 at 1:14 pm
Actually, it’s guys like you who have to lie about what somebody else’s position is in order to make yours look better. I’ve repeatedly stated that works are necessary to be saved, including the work of faith and have argued that it is incoherent to affirm a position that denies the salvation of works when the very thing you say is necessary for salvation is defined as a work both by your own definition and, more importantly, Christ’s definition of the term. And what I’ve said repeatedly is that when we’re told that we’re not saved by works, then it follows that it is a particular kind of work that we’re not saved by. That’s 1 + 1 = 2. I’ve made that argument so many times now, it’s impossible even for the most dishonest of persons to have missed it.
I unhesitatingly affirm what the Scriptures say that we are saved by faith and not by works. So, if we’re not saved by works, then clearly the works we’re not saved by fall within a particular zone of meaning. Man alive, disagree with me all you want but at least get the argument right.
LikeLike
March 30, 2021 at 2:46 pm
“There are many things in the bible written to many different audiences in various context over thousands of years. Pulling verses out and crying wolf is an easy game to play and a sure fire way to misread the scriptures.”
So you’re saying that God doesn’t deceive people? But if you’re going to interpret those passages so liberally that they have nothing to do with what they state so plainly…how can you trust ANYTHING in the Bible?
Furthermore, if God’s objective is that everyone be saved, and he is the ultimate author of the Bible, why would he allow such obviously easy to misunderstand passages to even be in the Bible? After all, if only a scholar with a highly nuanced interpretation of the Bible can understand it, while anyone else who reads it sees disturbing claims throughout the Bible like the ones I’ve mentioned…how does that not directly contradict God’s supposed goal? How many people have been repulsed enough to turn away from Christianity because of what the Bible claims? This is supposed to be the word of an all-knowing being, yet it doesn’t take a genius to realize that if the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, people are going to find aspects of God’s character too ugly to follow, through misunderstandings that are no fault of their own.
When I studied the Bible for the second time, I remember thinking of God pranking humanity by insisting he’s the only GOOD being and that everyone else is wicked and blaming them…all the while filling the Bible with example after example of his own wicked behavior–as if he used his omniscience to know exactly what to say so that most people would believe he’s good anyway (or that they would simply never read the Bible and instead let clergy teach only the “good” stuff).
“I don’t deny the Lord did any of those things in the verses above. God does not do these things on a whim or if He’s having a bad day.”
He doesn’t? Considering the OT is full of examples of him acting out of an emotional response, what makes you think he doesn’t act on whim?
You could try an experiment: read the Bible as if it is written by an evil God who created humanity just to toy with and abuse. If you always keep in mind God being all knowing and all powerful–meaning absolutely every decision he makes is purely optional–suddenly everything in the Bible makes more sense, explaining BOTH the “good” and the “evil” actions God takes.
“You just don’t want to find yourself fighting against God. I’m not implying that you are doing this because you are not.”
Well, it would be by definition impossible to fight an omnipotent being. 😉 But for me the problem is belief before concern about his behavior.
“Why does this not bother me you may ask ? Because I’m a child of God, He doesn’t deal with me on the basis of judgment or punishment. I’m reconciled to Him through Jesus, I don’t need to concern myself with judgment.”
You sound confident about that, but I’ve yet to hear a compelling explanation for why this is so. Well, perhaps God just created you to be certain and me to be skeptical. 😉 The problem for me is that I’ve seen that exact same level of confidence from people from a wide variety of religions, and clearly you can’t all be right. But you can all be wrong.
LikeLike
March 30, 2021 at 2:51 pm
“so because that analogy is creepy to non-Christians we shouldn’t use it ? lmao …….. may be that’s the point —- if they find it creepy it drives them away from Jesus and they separate themselves as tares/goats/damned. looks like God thought that analogy out really good.”
Except for this:
• 1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants ALL PEOPLE to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
• 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, NOT WANTING ANYONE TO PERISH, but everyone to come to repentance.
So if that’s true, then wouldn’t God do everything in his power to draw people to Christianity, rather than repel them?
Besides, what need would an all-knowing God have for tests, since he would already know everything everyone thinks.
LikeLike
March 30, 2021 at 2:58 pm
“Derek, I’ve included 2 of your comments above. To summarize the perfect universe you are living in results in your ultimate non-existence.”
That’s accurate. But what’s wrong with that? I’d like to live a long life and decide when I want to die, but I don’t think people who say they want to live forever have thought it through. An eternal life without needs or wants may sound good in the abstract, but what makes things precious to us is not their abundance; it’s their scarcity. If you always have all the air you need to breathe, you’re not going to appreciate it or even think much about it. But suddenly have your air supply cut off, and nothing in the world is more valuable to you. Life is precious to us precisely because we grow old and die. Living for all eternity would cheapen life, render it meaningless, an abstract concept that simply is. As founding father Thomas Paine once said, “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.”
To add to that, living forever would eventually almost certainly become a burden. How long do you think it would take you to do all the things you could imagine ever wanting to do? A century? A thousand years? How about a QUADRILLION years? Well, you’d better pace yourself, because a quadrillion years is only a tiny, insignificant fraction of eternity. I hope you don’t get bored easily! Because it sounds to me like an eternal life in heaven would eventually become hell. A purposeless, meaningless hell.
LikeLike
March 30, 2021 at 3:25 pm
Derek writes,
Of course I disagree with all of your posts, but this snippet reminded me of the Twilight Zone’s A Nice Place to Visit. Have you seen it?
LikeLike
March 30, 2021 at 3:59 pm
“I am obviously not able to provide you with credible objections to your questions according to Scalia. So I would suggest you pick this up with him.”
Alas, he seems reticent to do so. And I appreciate your non-confrontational manner–it allows for an exchange of ideas and keeps discussion from devolving into acrimony.
LikeLike
March 31, 2021 at 1:07 pm
derekmathais ……….. lmao because you ignore ALL of the verses where God clearly states many are called but few are chosen/the tares are satans children. the bible contains these so called “contradictions” to mark/seal people like you and scalia as goats/tares/damned/etc….
LOL ……. but what’s really hilarious is you and scalia are making the same argument for different reasons and scalia is so delusional he can’t see what he’s really trying to prove. your works save you/God is a liar.
LOL …… the only contradiction and proof we are wrong is in your and scalia’s deluded minds. the bible clearly teaches works are present. and the bible clearly teaches those works don’t/can’t save you. and the bible also clearly teaches if God calls you and accepts your yes He won’t abandon you. and the bible clearly teaches if you haven’t been called and accepted by God He can condemn you. no contradiction at all —- all of the evidence agrees with TR, Naz and myself …….. a true/saving faith=salvation and a true/saving faith produces fruit/law keeping/salutary acts/good works.
LOL ……… all your cre cre side has proved is a false/dead faith won’t/can’t save you —- which we agree with oh delusional one & God will condemn those that are not His children —- which we agree with too oh delusional one.
LOL ………… neither you, scalia or those like you can’t understand because God has sent you a “strong delusion” so you’ll believe a lie and die in your sins and most likely be destroyed body and soul in the lake of fire. so don’t worry — it’s not eternal conscious torment.
LOL ……… and that’s not judging that’s going by God’s clear teaching based on your own words —– you both have stated you were in bible believing churches and left. “you went out from us because you weren’t of us.” and that means you are going to the great white throne judgement where you are in big trouble.
LikeLike
March 31, 2021 at 2:52 pm
The poster writes,
Where did Derek say that he went to a Bible-believing church? I recall his saying that he was exposed to a lot of religious beliefs, but I don’t recall him ever saying that he belonged to any church.
LikeLike
April 1, 2021 at 12:45 pm
LOL …………. I don’t know who’s more delusional scalia or derekmathais.
if he didn’t say that’s my bad —- perhaps it was from one of the other numerous discussions im having ……. but if not it’s irrelevant. since he can’t see his error my point is correct —- he’s not part of the ekklesia and lost just like you. so you are diverting to remain in your delusion —– if im wrong about derekmathais being in a bible believing church your reprobate mind convinces you im wrong about faith alone & God won’t abandon 1 of His children.
LOL ………….. still waiting for you or derekmathais to state clearly what it is you think you proved ………
do you think you proved works are present ? LOL …….. we agree.
do you think you proved God can cast some one into the lake of fire if they answered an altar call and gave their lives to Christ ? LOL …… we agree.
LOL …….. ALL delusional people avoid making a clear statement like you and derekmathais because you are delusional but not crazy ….. even though i call you people crazy often.
LOL ……….. i’ll climb out further on the ledge because im on petra. even if you answer an altar call believe you are keeping the law, confessing when you break it and do good works/salutary acts if God didn’t claim you …….. He can throw you in the lake of fire. since you can’t see we are right that means God hasn’t claimed you and you are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. too bad so sad for you. that’s not me judging you because Jesus may grant you eternal life at the great white throne judgement but that highly unlikely with your level of delusion.
LikeLike
April 1, 2021 at 1:35 pm
Hebrews 6
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
LikeLike
April 1, 2021 at 3:39 pm
Scalia, in the passage you cited, what’s your take on the phrase “those who were… made partakers of the Holy Ghost”? Do you believe that’s a reference to people who have received the Holy Ghost in an Acts-2 sort of way? Is this passage stating that the people it’s speaking of will lose their salvation (“fall away”)?
I’ve always read it this way, but I’ve come across other arguments that differ. Seems that one’s interpretation is mostly guided by presuppositions.
Thoughts/insights are appreciated.
LikeLike
April 1, 2021 at 6:14 pm
Hi, Brother John. It’s good to hear from you again, and thanks for the questions. In direct answer to your second question, yes, this is referring to those who have received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I too have heard various interpretations, but I think we can agree that this passage can be exegeted objectively without harmful presuppositions.
The clearest, most straightforward interpretation of these verses is that the people referred to are Christians who have fallen away from the faith. These people were:
1) Enlightened
2) Tasted of the heavenly gift
3) Partakers of the Holy Ghost
4) Tasted the word of God
5) Tasted the powers of the world to come
Unless one were looking for something else, this description can be applied to any Christian, and it certainly would be head-scratching to describe hypocrites in that manner.
To be “enlightened” is to have illumination, understanding, endowed of God with insight into God’s mysterious plan (see Thayer, BDAG, Mounce, Vine, Brill), and said word (φωτίζω) is used consistently in reference to Christians.
To “taste” is, according to BDAG, to obtain a gift while others show that it refers to actual experience. Thus, a person didn’t pretend to experience the “heavenly gift,” he rather actually obtained it via experience.
As to “partakers” of the Holy Ghost, Vine describes it as “those who share in a heavenly calling, or have held, or will hold, a regal position in relation to the earthly, messianic kingdom.” BDAG renders it, “sharing in a heavenly calling,” while Robertson, as others, says that is an actual spiritual experience or participation.
And tasting the good word of God and the powers of the world to come is the same word above which is an actual experience.
The definitions of these terms leave no doubt whatsoever that the persons spoken of were genuine Christians who had experienced salvation and for some reason ended up denying the doctrine that saved them.
The objection that these persons were not sincere or apparent Christians is not credible for the following reasons. We’re told in verse 6 that it is impossible to renew such persons to repentance if they fall away. If these people never genuinely repented, then why speak of it being impossible for them to be “renewed” to a false profession? Why would anybody want to be “renewed” to a false experience? If they were always lost, then why is it impermissible for them to experience genuine repentance? This passage would then, in effect, be damning people who were already damned without the hope of ever getting saved to boot. Given that the previous condition was clearly a state of revelation and genuine experience with God, to apostatize is then understood as an extremely grave matter for which there is no remedy. How can you fall away from something you never had?
Alternately, some have theorized that this group, though genuine, will irreparably lose some of the rewards they could have had in the eternal state, but they will nonetheless be saved. But given verse 6’s similarity with 10:29, and the imagery of re-crucifying Christ and the rejection, cursing and burning described in verse 8, the suggestion that these people will actually be saved finds no warrant from the text. That appears to be a textbook case of eisegesis due to the recognition that the theory that these people were pretenders is obviously false.
The same message (that genuine Christians can be lost) is given in Hebrews 10 and in numerous passages throughout the New Testament.
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 8:10 am
John M., I can offer you an alternate explanations of these verses. Context is critical here. You should read chapters 2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 .. at least.
The book of Hebrews is written to Jews/Hebrews and in chapter 3 the writer is imploring them to not harden their hearts and believe the gospel. In this context these Hebrews are not Christians yet. Surely they were familiar with the gospel and heard the message. But they are warned in verse 12 that their unbelieving heart will cause them to “fall away” from God. This falling away which you may think is “backsliding” is nothing of the sort. This is a falling away from the truth back to Law, which is obviously what they were well acquainted with.
Back in chapter 2, the writer again warns the Jews of paying close attention to what they heard and that there is no escape for them if they “neglect” this great salvation. This is not language spoken to saved people. These Jews are hearing the word and perhaps even experiencing the works and/or miracles the apostles are performing.
Heb 2:1 Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.
Heb 2:2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution,
Heb 2:3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard,
Heb 2:4 while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
Heb 3:7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, if you hear his voice,
Heb 3:8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness,
Heb 3:9 where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years.
Heb 3:10 Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.’
Heb 3:11 As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest.’”
Heb 3:12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.
If you keep reading, the writer goes on talks of Melchizedek and seems frustrated at their lack of understanding. In verse 12 below he states that “by this time” they should be teachers, however the understanding has not yet sunk in for many of them apparently so that they need to be taught the basic principles of the gospel. Again these Jews are in a learning phase … they are being preached to and being taught the gospel.
Heb 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,
In the following 3 verses we see the writer again repeats what these Jews have experienced by using the words such as “tasted” “enlightened” and “shared”. These Jews were taught by the best in the business, probably witnessed miracles and conversions etc … they were there to see it all.
The meaning here is this, if having experienced these events and teaching and yet they “fall away” (see Hebrews 3:12) , which means to reject the gospel, there is no place of repentance to be found because they rejected the only means of repentance in Jesus Christ. The word “restore” here is not in the sense of restoring them to a previous state. It is more in the sense of restoring them in a salvific sense.
In other words, if they reject the gospel. there is no other means of repentance that can save them since the only place of repentance that can be found is in Christ.
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
Heb 6:5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
Heb 6:6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
How do we know if this is the correct interpretation ?
We need to look at verses 7 and 8.
These verses remind us of the parable of the soils in Matthew … it classifies those Jews in verses 4-6 have never receiving the rain into their soil. This is not talking about Christians, these are people that have not received the gospel into their heart. They are on the fence and their salvation is not secured.
Heb 6:7 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God.
Heb 6:8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
In the following verses, the writer try’s to encourage them “though we speak in this way”. The writer realizes the solemn warning he just gave them and expresses his faith in them to go on to better things that belong or lead to salvation. In verse 10 it appears that these Jews were involved in serving the Saints which again shows there is a distinction between these 2 groups of Christians versus Jews who are being preached to. Further they are encouraged in verse 12 to be imitators of those who inherit the promises. In other words, they are being encouraged to give their heart to the gospel and stop sitting on the fence of doubt and unbelief.
Heb 6:9 Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation.
Heb 6:10 For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do.
Heb 6:11 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end,
Heb 6:12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
I think this interpretation is a much more comprehensive and contextual view of Hebrews.
I hope it helps.
Naz
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 10:47 am
Naz’s Post 211 claims to be “a much more comprehensive and contextual view of Hebrews,” but in reality, it completely misstates the “context” at every point. And even the verses he cites speak against what he alleges.
The citation from Heb. 2:1-4 includes the writer himself. He doesn’t say, “You must be much closer attention to what you have heard, lest you drift away from it.” He rather says, “Therefore WE must pay…” A simple reading of the New Testament discloses no similar approach. Peter said “save yourselves from this untoward generation.” He did not say, “we need to save ourselves from…”
Heb. 3:12 – You cannot “fall away from the living God” if you were never attached to Him. As of the day of Pentecost, no unconverted Jew was saved. He was just as lost as any Gentile. The system to which they were attached, though a schoolmaster, was insufficient to save them. They were thus tethered to a sinking boat which they most definitely needed to “fall away” from. So, either these Hebrews had sufficient faith in Christ or they did not. If the latter, then it is impossible to fall away from something they never had. So, clearly, they had faith in Christ, and they are warned by the example of their fathers not to make the same mistake as they. Their fathers, mind you, WERE God’s covenant people, but they rebelled against God and provoked Him to wrath. The comparison, in order to be consistent, must mean that the current group was equally attached to God’s covenant in order for the warning to be coherent.
So, let’s look at the book of Hebrews more closely and see whether the claim that the addressees were really unbelievers. As noted, the writer of Hebrews (whom I happen to believe is Paul), includes himself in all critical passages. He does not speak to unbelievers with words like:
Hebrews 3
1 Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,
6 but Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house, if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.
If this group were not saved, they would certainly not be called “holy” brothers, nor would he say “we are his house” if they were indeed not part of His house. And further note, he did not say that “we are his house if we believe the gospel.” He rather said that the conditional is “if indeed WE HOLD FAST our confidence…” The word “hold fast,” according to BDAG, is to hold someone back from going away, hold back, hinder, prevent from going away…retain faithfully…to keep in one’s possession.” In other words, it’s not a condition to be obtained, it is a condition to be retained. The same thought is repeated in the following verses:
Hebrews 3
13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.
Paul is not addressing this group as an OSAS believer would. He does not say, “You too can share in Christ if you accept Him as your personal savior.” Of course, he doesn’t even come close to offering that kind of advice. Rather, they all, together, have come to “share” (become partners in the heavenly calling – GK.) if they “retain faithfully” their original confidence to the end. If they never had genuine faith, how would it benefit them to hang onto it till the end?
Hebrews 5
12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,
13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.
14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
The child analogy is incoherent unless they audience was actually born into God’s family. Paul does not encourage them to be part of the family. He addressses them as fellow family members and chastises them, not for being unbelievers or being slow to accept the gospel, they are rather admonished because they haven’t matured to the point of teaching others. But whether you’re an infant or an adult, you’ve nonetheless been born.
Now, with respect to chapter 6, Naz continues to allege the fiction that Paul is addressing unbelievers, but unbelievers do not fit with this description:
Hebrews 6
10 For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do.
Really? These unbelievers are laboring in God’s kingdom in love and faithfulness toward His name in serving the saints? Clearly then, this is not the language one speaks to those in need of conversion. It’s remarkable that at every turn, inventive, clever rhetorical devices are employed to explain away rather than explicate plain, straightforward passages which clearly point to the audience’s status as believers.
And of course we have these unmistakable words from chapter 10:
19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.
24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,
25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
An unbeliever does not have confidence to enter “the holy places by the blood of Jesus.” That is a right and privilege for believers. An OSAS advocate may quibble about vss. 20-22 and argue that Paul is encouraging his audience to do something they’ve never done before, but that allegation is nullified by vs. 23 which verifies that confession of their hope which entitles them to the privileges of entrance into the most holy places is something they’re to “hold fast.” As we’ve seen, that’s something to be retained, not obtained. Moreover, he instructs them in vs. 24, not to become believers so they could avail themselves of these promises, but to provoke each other to good works and to admonish them to continue meeting (assembling) together. In other words, don’t stop going to church! That’s what you say to unbelievers? Of course not. He is addressing brethren in the Lord who’ve been granted access into the most holy place by the blood of Jesus and he admonishes them to continue in the faith, to encourage each other to good works, and to keep assembling as a congregation.
Hebrews 13
7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
9 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them.
Again, these are very common, normative words spoken to believers. What leaders are they to remember — Jewish ones? Certainly not because in remembering them, they were to consider the outcome of their life and to imitate their faith.
7 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Who will give account for his audience, and why are they to obey leaders who aren’t saved? Why are they attending an assembly to the point of having Christian leaders if they are not already believers? Paul is clearly referring to the ministry which is tasked with caring for the sheep (Acts 20:28), and the audience is instructed to both imitate and obey the ones entrusted to watch for their souls.
And finally,
22 I appeal to you, brothers, bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly.
23 You should know that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom I shall see you if he comes soon.
24 Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who come from Italy send you greetings.
25 Grace be with all of you.
This is the same kind of benediction we find in other epistles like Philippians and Colossians which the common, familiar interchange among believers. As with 1 John and James, the allegation that the audiences are not really Christian finds no support in any of those books. That argument has to be made, however, because OSAS apologists realize that if the audiences were Christian, their entire edifice will come crashing down. And since people addressed are undeniably Christian, the assertion that a Christian cannot lose salvation is thus without textual warrant.
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 11:48 am
John ………… no it does not mean those indwelt by the Holy Spirit have the Holy Spirit jump out of you until you repent then He indwells you again ….. repeat each time you sin.
what scalia/derekmatthais and those like them will not admit is the bible talks about 2 groups so he is not proving what he thinks he is proving. simply put they (ie. those that deny faith alone/osas) ALL make the same errors.
we are not saying a false/dead faith alone can or will save you. we are saying a true/saving faith alone unites you to Jesus and because of His works by God’s grace you are saved. the fruits present because of this type of faith are the “works” (ie. keeping God’s moral laws/salutary acts/good works) in the bible verse that says “not by works.” this is crystal clear by the apostle Paul’s teaching of the sinner, having relations with his father’s wife, being saved at the Second Coming as stated above. where as scalia and those like him are seeing what’s not there in the verses he just quoted.
again for osas ……. we are not saying everybody that answers an altar call (ie. claims to be Christian) is osas because more than 1 thing has to occur. to be osas the Father has to draw you to Him, you accept His free gift of salvation and He claims you as His own. that’s why marriage (ie. the bride of Christ) is also used both have to say I do or the marriage is not valid. and once the union is complete God will not abandon you or allow some one to snatch you out of His hand or even allow you to jump out of His hand because it’s a binding covenant. as per the clear example the apostle Paul gives about the sinner doing his father’s wife.
do not be deceived by these works righteous heretics …….. you can not earn your salvation and if you think you can God warns you biblically you are accursed.
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 12:45 pm
Now, with respect to Naz’s explanation of Hebrews 6:6, he writes, “The word ‘restore’ here is not in the sense of restoring them to a previous state. It is more in the sense of restoring them in a salvific sense.” Notice that Naz does not cite any source, and I guess it’s for good reason because his re-explanation is entirely discordant with the meaning of the words. The words for “restore…again,” are πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν which, according to Robertson, “bluntly denies the possibility of renewal for apostates from Christ.” BDAG states, “to return to a position, to restore.” Vine states, “the impossibility of ‘renewing’ to repentance those Jews who professedly adhered to the Christian faith, if, after their experiences of it…they apostatized into their former Judaism.” Thayer says, “renew, renovate,” which of course means to restore to a good condition (once good, now bad). The word “restore” is the verb and the object is “repentance.” Thus, it is repentance that cannot be restored. This can only mean that at one point, Paul’s audience had repented, which the Hebrews would find impossible to return to if they fell into apostasy.
Thus, even from OSAS believers, honest linguists do not deny what the text plainly says. The audience had at one point professed Christ in repentance, and apostasy marks their defection from their original profession. Paul clearly states that restoration to that former position would be impossible in this instance. OSAS theologians typically state that the audience’s profession was only apparent, that the Hebrews did not actually experience regeneration, which of course means that they walked away from something they never had.
The OSAS errors here are obvious both from a lexical and a contextual standpoint.
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 1:37 pm
I guess the grace of God is pretty weak and the cross not powerful enough to restore a fallen Christian back to the faith .. is this what the scriptures teach ?
It’s impossible to be restored ? Why is it impossible ? Is there a point of no return ? What is that point ? Does Scalia decide for us ?
There is something seriously wrong with this type of reasoning. When is a person officially “fallen away” and damned ? Define apostasy ? What about if the apostate repents and comes back 10 years later, will God reject Him ? On what basis will God reject him ?
The only reason it is “impossible” to be “restored” is because they are rejecting the only means of salvation available, which is Jesus Christ. If you reject Jesus there is no repentance to be found and it’s impossible to be saved/restored.
As for the audience the writer is speaking to, I don’t deny that there were some true believes in the mix. So when the letter is read, if the shoe fits where it. This is first century Palestine, there was no “sinners prayer” or altar calls like modern day America. The audience of every letter will be a mix of believers, unbelievers and those on the fence. I don’t think this is unreasonable to assume and I think the apostles were smart enough to know this since their letters, while instructive, were also evangelistic in their tone.
Heb 4:1 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it.
I never mentioned anything about OSAS in my last 2 posts. We were trying to decipher Hebrews 6:4-6 and the context of Hebrews. As for the permanence of salvation or the apostasy that is spoken of, the reader will need to decide for himself what the scriptures are saying.
Naz
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 2:36 pm
“i have great arguments ….. but because of your problems you can’t see them.”
I understand evidence and reasoning better than most (including graduate studies in science philosophy). If I can’t see your “great arguments,” chances are your arguments need work.
“if you could prove the God of the bible is a liar, you can’t but even if you could —- that would only prove the god the bible is describing is not God.”
Again, this is what the Bible says:
• 1 Kings 22:23 So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. [God forces people to lie.]
• 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
• Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet.
So how is that not evidence that the God of the Bible is a liar? If you claim those passages don’t refer to God but some other god, then how can you trust ANY reference to God in the Bible to be actually referring to God?
Regardless of whether you agree with me or not, you have to admit these are reasonable questions for anyone studying the Bible to ask.
“LOL ……… again i use lol because it’s yours and others arguments that are childish not mine.”
Really? Please explain how any argument I’ve made is childish. I can certainly be mistaken in my claims, but childish? You’ve yet to demonstrate anything to that effect.
“and like all you people —- still waiting for a straight forward answer from you to my questions.”
What questions? I don’t read most of the back-and-forth sniping between you and Scalia, so if you’ve asked me a question I haven’t answered, you’ll have to be more direct and clear.
“good for Naz and TR that they can address your stupidity w/o telling you that you are cre cre but that’s not how i roll.”
I don’t make claims I can’t support with evidence, so please demonstrate how ANYTHING I’ve said is “stupid.” Perhaps you’re referring to this conundrum I posted near the top of the page:
If God is all knowing and all powerful, as the Bible says, then we have to acknowledge that he could have created any of an infinite variety of universes he could imagine with his infinite mind. And he had to have known before he even created this universe that if he chose to create this specific universe that sin would result, right? All that HAS to be true by definition if God is all knowing and all powerful.
Thus it has to mean this is the universe God WANTED to exist. Sin can’t be an unfortunate consequence of free will (even if we ignore all the biblical evidence that God determines everything and thus free will is only an illusion), because God could have chosen to create one of the infinite universes where Lucifer didn’t rebel and Adam and Eve didn’t disobey…universes that MUST be possible to exist if choice actually exists.
So the only rational conclusion I see is that God WANTED sin to exist, he WANTED humanity to fall, he WANTED the world to become wicked, he WANTED to drown the world in a flood, and he WANTS billions of people to end up burning in hell. It means he is the one entirely responsible for the existence of sin in our universe, and the cause of every atrocity. Right?
If so, perhaps you can explain to me how this question is stupid by providing a clear explanation that nobody seems to have an answer for.
On a side note, if you are an evangelical, aren’t you supposed to, well, evangelize? If so, resorting to ad hominems and other fallacies isn’t how you go about it. Your constant mean-spirited and unnecessary acrimony is seen by others as representative of Christians, which is only going to drive people away from Christianity. Indeed, this is one of the main reasons why over 20% of US evangelicals have quit the church over just the past four years: https://newrepublic.com/article/161772/can-religion-give-ptsd , and why the importance of religion has dropped in half over the past 10 years, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2020/12/americas-post-christian-future-part-2/ , and why church attendance has dropped below 50% for the first time ever: https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-below-majority-first-time.aspx. So you might want to think twice about your attitude.
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 3:08 pm
Test
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 3:18 pm
“LOL ………… silly question, i can pick all 4 because since God is all powerful He can fix what evil desstroyed.
1. God exists
2. God is good
3. God is all powerful
4. Evil exists”
Are you aware that many thousands of innocent babies and young children die in abject agony from disease, starvation and violence each and EVERY DAY (https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/child-under-15-dies-every-five-seconds-around-world-un-report)? If God is omnipresent, then he has a front-row seat watching those children suffer miserably…yet he does nothing at all to help them. Even if you want to blame humanity for most of it, that does nothing to help the more than 14,000 children who will die horribly tomorrow and the next day, and the next, and the next… The ONLY one who could possibly save these children from suffering day in, day out for days, week, months, even years before succumbing…is God. But he does nothing.
Sure, as you say, if he’s all powerful then he could fix what evil destroys. But clearly he’s not bothering to do anything about it when it’s so desperately needed. What possible reason would a GOOD God have for allowing this? Why would he DELIBERATELY create a world where he knew such atrocities and suffering would happen? If he’s all powerful, he could have created a different universe where the “right” decisions were made. But he clearly didn’t.
If any imperfect, fallible human just sat there and watched as even ONE child slowly died in agony over the course of weeks, even though it would be no effort whatsoever for that person to save that child, we would consider him evil, would we not? We would regard him as a psychopathic monster and at the very least want nothing to do with him, right?
So how should we regard someone who is all powerful, yet sits by and does nothing as he watches many THOUSANDS of children suffer and die every single day of the year? Should we regard him as option #2: God is good? Under what justification would any moral, compassionate, caring person have to regard him as such?
Being able to fix what you destroy doesn’t make you good. NOT causing the most innocent among us to suffer long, lingering deaths in the first place is a pretty low bar, but shouldn’t that be the absolute minimum for someone to even be considered good?
But somehow you find all this funny enough to LOL at it all. And yet somehow I’M the crazy, stupid one? Really?
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 3:23 pm
Naz writes,
This is your predictable fallback position when you give up on exegesis. You basically restate your belief as if it nullifies either the text or the argument. In other words, unless you agree with Naz, the grace of God is “weak.”
As a former Pentecostal, Naz knows that Pentecostals believe that backsliders can be restored to a right relationship with God. Those who “fall away” here are in a different category, so Naz is either feigning ignorance or he really doesn’t know as much about Oneness Pentecostalism as he makes out.
Well! I’m certainly glad that Naz can show us what proper “tone” and “demeanor” are. Yeah, Naz. God appointed me to decide who gets to be saved and who’s gonna be lost. That’s what I’ve been saying all along, right? I guess you just couldn’t help yourself with that cheap shot as you know good and well I’ve never said nor implied such an awful thing.
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 3:23 pm
First, the classification of persons involved are those who’ve had a genuine experience with God. Second, he is discussing the foundational doctrinal principles of the church. If a person has had a genuine experience with God and understands the foundational principles upon which he was brought out of darkness into light, he understands that the grace of God reached for him and via Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, he has hope of eternal life, and if he consciously and deliberately denies that, pronounces it false and walks away from it, there is no re-entrance for him. It is no different than blaspheming the Holy Ghost. Christ’s enemies said that He had an unclean Spirit, and Paul said that he was a blasphemer, but God had mercy on him because he committed blasphemy in ignorance. So, a person who knowingly and willingly curses the Spirit of God will never be forgiven. The vast majority of backsliders never deny God’s person nor His redemptive plan. They simply decided that they didn’t want to live for God. There is hope for them, but not for the apostate
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 3:24 pm
But that’s not what the text says; that’s what you say, Naz. The text says that they cannot be brought back to repentance. They had once repented, so being “renewed to repentance” is to have another opportunity start over. As this passage says, that is no longer available. Again, you cannot fall away from something you were never a part of. Paul makes it clear that these people had a genuine experience with God, and the words he uses show undeniably that they at one time repented, and that is precisely what cannot be renewed. They become guilty of crucifying (killing) Christ which renders their act the epitome of apostasy. Recall Christ’s prayer on the cross: “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” In other words, if they knew what they were doing, there would be no forgiveness. An apostate knows what he is doing when he kills Christ. Consequently, there is no hope for him.
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 3:24 pm
Well, that’s an “interesting” way to pat textual inconsistencies into place. The tone of the narrative doesn’t change throughout the entire book. Paul consistently uses the plural “we” throughout his letter and refers to his audience has having the normative, common Christian experience. Their problem wasn’t their Christianity, per se; it was their spiritual immaturity, and that’s why Paul took time (as inspired by the Holy Ghost, of course) to explain again the foundation of God’s grace and redemptive plan. We find plenty of evangelistic terminology in Acts. That is notably absent in Hebrews. And since the text is clear that the audience is Christian, the onus is on the claimant who avers that the audience was either completely or partially unsaved. Since the text does not show that, it must be read into the text via one’s theological presuppositions. Since saved persons can never be lost, ergo, these persons must not be real believers, the text notwithstanding.
You don’t change the text to suit your beliefs. You change what you believe to fit the text. Something is seriously askew when my beliefs clearly contradict the text. And if the text can be ignored to fit my template, then why cite the text? It’s no longer authoritative.
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 3:53 pm
I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful responses on differing perspectives of the Hebrews passage.
LikeLike
April 2, 2021 at 4:58 pm
“A couple of things first: 1) That’s not the topic of this thread, so further discussion along that line is discordant with the administrator’s wishes.”
You were the one who posted that “once we have a consistent definition of “good,” and if we can prove that God is infinitely good, then it follows that if evil exists, there is a morally justifiable reason for evil.” Why would you even bring it up, then?
““Good” and “evil” have very longstanding definitions and said definitions have been held by the significant majority of Christians for a very long time. It has nothing to do with Euthyphro’s Dilemma (arbitrary commands or a standard apart from God) or redefining the terms to placate popular opinion or to fit the biblical record. It is objective with no imposition of subjective values.”
A couple of problems with that. First, as I noted, using different definitions of good and evil “would render the terms good and evil meaningless as far as humans are concerned, and we would have to come up with different words for the behaviors I listed above…only to end up with the same problem as before redefining the terms.” In other words, if we consider slavery to be evil, and God condones and even orders slavery, it does no good to say Christianity uses a different definition of evil because the problem STILL remains: God condones and even orders slavery. If you don’t want to use the term “evil” to describe that, then we need to use a different term to refer to behavior that deliberately and unnecessarily causes harm or suffering. Either way, THAT behavior is what God is guilty of committing, so just saying you use a different definition for the word evil is a dodge that doesn’t address the issue nor solve the problem. Do you see what I mean?
Second, why do you think God’s morality is objective? If he decides what is moral and what isn’t, then morality is subject to his whim…which is subjective by definition. And if an objective moral standard exists apart from God, then God’s morality isn’t necessarily part of that objective moral standard. Indeed, how moral can one be by ANY standard if one condones or commits murder and genocide, animal and human sacrifice, torture, child and animal abuse, theft, slavery, rape, incest, cannibalism, betrayal and lying? That seems utterly incongruous to me.
I know some people claim that a creator has the right to do whatever he wants to his creations…but that doesn’t mean abusing his creations is moral. After all, if and when someone develops artificial intelligence capable of suffering, and he then deliberately and unnecessarily makes it suffer, then he’s a cruel monster, irrespective of him being the creator. We wouldn’t tolerate God torturing people for all eternity for simply not believing he exists if we had the power to do so. Might doesn’t make right…it just makes one hard to stop, right?
“Thus, if it can be proved that God is infinitely good, or even if His goodness is assumed arguendo, the occurrence of evil, even great evil, cannot disprove His existence (as you acknowledge). If evil occurs, it follows that there must be a morally justifiable reason for its occurrence if God exists.”
My point isn’t about whether God exists, but about whether God is evil–at least by any standard that has any meaning for us. And if God is evil, there is no need to appeal to some hoped-for but inevident morally justifiable reason for evil existing…it’s just what an evil God would naturally want to exist. After all, why else create a universe you KNOW will fail what you claim to want, guaranteeing untold BILLIONS of people will end up being tortured in hell for all eternity, despite your being all powerful? Why not create one where you know everyone just so happens to make the right choices? If you’re all powerful, it’s as easy to create the latter universe as the former, by definition.
And you can even keep the “free will” claim, because if free will exists then there must be the option for making the right choice, and thus it must be possible for God to envision such a world and create it, rather than one where he knows everything falls apart right from the beginning.
LikeLike
April 3, 2021 at 10:25 am
John M., your welcome.
If you have any specific questions I would be glad to address them for you the best I can.
Happy Easter.
Naz
LikeLike
April 3, 2021 at 12:50 pm
“And since the text is clear that the audience is Christian, the onus is on the claimant who avers that the audience was either completely or partially unsaved. Since the text does not show that, it must be read into the text via one’s theological presuppositions. Since saved persons can never be lost, ergo, these persons must not be real believers, the text notwithstanding.”
It is not clear from the text that the audience is entirely Christian. There is no reason for us to assume that they are all genuine Christians and surely in reality there must have been a mix of people from either extreme in the mix as is the case with any group.
To me it is clear that at least some of the audience has not attained to a genuine salvation. As the verse below states, the have failed to “reach” it.
Heb 4:1 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it.
Also, the concept of entering God’s rest is mentioned in this chapter starting from verse 1 and continuing in verse 2. We see that the message heard was not mixed with “faith” with those in the wilderness. We know faith is Christ is the most fundamental “requirement”, if I can use that word, for genuine salvation, So there must be at least some Jews in the audience that are following the pattern of those that rebelled in the wilderness because of their lack of faith.
Heb 4:2 For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.
Furthermore, the writer implores the audience to strive to enter into that rest. Now that would apply to those sitting on the fence. So if the shoe fits, wear it.
Heb 4:9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God,
Heb 4:10 for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
Heb 4:11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.
We know that the “rest” that is being referred to is salvation. If a person has not rested from his own works, then he is still under the law and operating under the law. Such person is relying on his works and be definition is not saved by grace and has not entered into God’s rest. A Christian does not need to strive to enter God’s rest, because he’s already living in God’s rest. Rather, a Christian should strive to maintain good works and grow in the grace and the knowledge of God. That’s not the same as entering God’s rest.
So in the end, the warnings of Hebrews is to those that are falling away back to Judaism instead of putting their faith in Christ, thus entering into God’s rest.
Naz
LikeLike
April 3, 2021 at 11:35 pm
Naz writes,
Naz doesn’t adequately support this contention in his ensuing argument, but for the moment, let’s concede that arguendo. That does not affect the main topic of this side discussion, which is whether the persons spoken of in Hebrews 6 were Christians. As noted above, Paul describes people who were:
1) Enlightened
2) Tasted of the heavenly gift
3) Partakers of the Holy Ghost
4) Tasted the word of God
5) Tasted the powers of the world to come
The verb “renewed” is attached to the object “repentance,” which means that they who “fall away” can never be brought back to repentance. As linguists on both sides of the aisle affirm, these people were clearly defecting from Christ in some measure. We know from Christ’s own words that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost will never be forgiven and that Christ’s prayer on the cross was an appeal based upon the ignorance of his killers. Paul himself confessed blasphemy but he stated that God had mercy on him due to his ignorance (1 Tim. 1:13). And Heb. 6:6 makes it clear that those who fall away are guilty of crucifying Christ. Note, there is no “again” in ἀνασταυροῦντας. It simply means to “crucify.” Thus, if “enlightened” persons who were “partakers of the Holy Ghost” crucify Christ, repentance is forever closed to them because they know what they are doing.
So, I am happy to agree for argument’s sake that some of the audience in Hebrews 4 were not Christians. That has absolutely no bearing on the lesson in Hebrews 5-6.
Now, to Naz’s argument proper, he begins in Hebrews 4:1, but let’s back up a bit…
Hebrews 3
1 Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,
So far, there’s no hint that Paul is including unbelievers.
6 but Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house, if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.
Again, Paul’s collective address is all-inclusive and makes our being “his house” conditioned on our holding fast (retaining) our confidence and hope.
And to this same audience, he warns:
12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.
13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.
Now, Paul could not have been addressing any spattering of unbelievers here, because he warns his brothers to “take care” that there be in any of them an “unbelieving heart” which leads them “to fall away from the living God.” If they were already unbelievers, they couldn’t “fall away” from God. Why take care to avoid unbelief if they already were unbelievers? He would rather have admonished them to obtain faith, not keep it. But since the context does not change from verse 1 to verse 12, we know that Paul is speaking to the same group of Christians. Moreover, he reinforces that with a repetition of what he said in verse 6 in verse 12 — we share Christ IF “we hold our original confidence firm to the end.”
The “rest” that Paul refers to is agreed by all that I’ve read as the promise of Canaan. Those who were not excused by ignorance were condemned to die in the wilderness, excepting Joshua and Caleb, because they did not believe the promise of God. Now, this point is critical because Paul is still addressing the same group of believers.
Hebrews 4
1 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it.
2 For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.
3 For we who have believed enter that rest,
From the previous chapter extending here, we understand that there is a “rest” promised to Christians. And because we have that greater promise, we should “fear” lest we fail to reach it. Again, this is the same group, and Paul continues to speak to them as believers. Neither the tone nor the narrative changes in that regard.
Now, with respect to verse 3, Paul does NOT state that we have fully obtained that rest. As Robertson notes, “enter” is the “emphatic futuristic present middle indicative of eiserchomai.” In other words, its reception is ultimately certain for true believers, but of course under the proximate and general contexts of “holding fast” our faith in God.
9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God,
10 for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.
Again, this rest is spoken of in futuristic terms, and its reception is again conditioned on obedience. There is thus no contextual break in chapters 3 and 4. Paul nowhere addresses unbelievers. He is rather issuing stark warnings to fellow Christians to retain their faith lest they fall by the wayside like their forefathers.
Naz argues that we have our “rest” in the Holy Spirit (salvation), but he surely knows that a Christian’s present experience in the Holy Ghost is but a “down payment” (Eph. 1:14) of its consummation at the Lord’s coming. Recall also what Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:19, “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.” We did NOT follow Jesus for this life only. Our aim is the fulness of rest with our Lord Jesus Christ in the eternal state. And that’s why Paul consistently stresses that the promise is conditioned on our continuing to be faithful.
So, whether or not we concede the point arguendo, the argument that Paul is addressing unbelievers in Hebrews 6 has no textual support. Furthermore, the argument that Paul included unbelievers in Hebrews 4 is equally unsupported by the text.
LikeLike
April 4, 2021 at 9:30 am
John M., I was reading some older posts and came across a few of yours. I see that you are conflicted about faith/works and knowing whether you are saved. I know this can be very stressful and even paralyzingly and I’ve been there.
I want to comfort you and let you know that you wouldn’t even be asking these questions unless you were saved in the first place. Do you think unbelievers are going around trying to determine whether they are saved or not? God is not even in their passing thought even on a day like today (Easter).
You need to ask yourself how many sins did Jesus die for on that cross. You also need to ask yourself what exactly can you do that will make you more forgiven than yesterday. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Our forgiveness is based on blood, not apologies or confessions or altar calls.
I want to remind you that you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise and God is not going to just abandon you. Nothing can separate you from the love of God. The only thing that could have separated you is sin, but that’s gone now and He remembers your sin no more. Your future sins are included because God is outside time and sees the end and the beginning.
As for works, you were created for good works and you are more like your true self when you walk in them. You will prove you are a child of God no matter what you do, you prove your salvation when you feel miserable when you sin, and you will prove your salvation when you give a cup of water in His name.
Be assured that you are saved today. Don’t let the enemy cause you to doubt who you are in Christ. There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. Jesus is our anchor, not us.
Blessings this Easter John.
Naz
LikeLike
April 4, 2021 at 9:41 am
Scalia, I think the down payment in Ephesians is a “guarantee” of the future possession. So yes we are resting in Christ and have refrained from our own works, if in fact we are in Him.
Naz
LikeLike
April 4, 2021 at 2:09 pm
Naz writes,
Actually, the word is question is ἀρραβών which, according to BDAG is, “payment of part of a purchase price in advance, first installment, deposit, down payment, pledge.” It “secures a legal claim to the article in question, or makes a contract valid.” Vine renders it, “earnest-money deposited by the purchaser and forfeited if the purchase was not completed…[i]n general usage, it came to denote a pledge or earnest of any sort.” Mounce calls it a “pledge, earnest,” and the same for Thayer. LSJ calls it “earnest-money, caution-money, deposited by the purchaser and forfeited if the purchase is not complete.”
As we know from our discussion of Hebrews, the promise is certain upon the condition that believers remain faithful. No believer has to worry about God reneging on His end of the “contract.” That does not, however, imply the dissolution of our contractual obligation to remain faithful “unto the end.”
As noted previously, this life is not the aim of a Christian…
2 Peter 2
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
With an important proviso…
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
and…
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
The terms of the contract are never unconditional.
LikeLike
April 4, 2021 at 2:10 pm
Naz …………. see this is their problem “not by works” doesn’t mean “not by works” but “enlightened” means “indwelt.” that’s why ilmao …….. you have to because it’s so delusional. scalia and derekmathais practice what i call the Jeopardy style of theology —- they have their answer already and they only look for evidence that supports their belief.
briefly because there are really good apologetics on Hebrews Chpt 6 …… there’s several ways the Holy Spirit can enlighten you w/o indwelling you:
– you can read the bible
– a indwelt person can give you info
– the Holy Spirit can give you a dream, vision, place a thought in your head
– you can observe an event ….. natural or miraculous
so even if you only had that evidence you can’t state with any level of certainty
that even implies the Holy Spirit will abandon/leave/jump out of you once you a New Covenant member is indwelt by Him.
LikeLike
April 4, 2021 at 2:45 pm
Actually, the reference to 2 Peter should be chapter 3 instead of chapter 2. And while we’re on it, it is relevant that Peter warns of the ability of a Christian to fall from “stedfastness.” BDAG defines that as “a state of security, safe position.” Thayer says it is a “firm condition.” Mounce says it is “a fixing, settling; a state of firmness, fixedness.” Brill says it is a “fixed position, permanence.” It is thus obvious that our “fixed, secure, safe” position is conditioned on our faithfulness. If we’re unfaithful, we will most certainly fall from a safe place. In other words, we’re safe so long as we remain faithful.
LikeLike
April 4, 2021 at 2:57 pm
The poster writes,
The poster routinely avoids direct engagement which makes his replies predictable. Without interacting with the actual argument, it posts amount to empty hand-waiving (as I’ve observed multiple times now.
If the Holy Spirit did not indwell these persons, then what sense does it make to say that they cannot be renewed to repentance? If they were never genuine believers, why wouldn’t they have an opportunity to repent at a later date? If they were unbelievers from the start, then why state that they could never be “renewed” to a phony repentance? Why would anybody want to be “renewed” to a false profession? For the umpteenth time, renew is the verb and repentance is the object. It is thus the repentance that cannot be renewed, and that can only mean that it was at one time exercised and can never be exercise again if the persons in question “fall away.” It is absurd to state that unbelievers who professed a sham repentance are barred from falsely professing Christ again.
To be “enlightened” is to have illumination, understanding, endowed of God with insight into God’s mysterious plan (see Thayer, BDAG, Mounce, Vine, Brill), and said word (φωτίζω) is used consistently in reference to Christians.
To “taste” is, according to BDAG, to obtain a gift while others show that it refers to actual experience. Thus, a person didn’t pretend to experience the “heavenly gift,” he rather actually obtained it via experience.
As to “partakers” of the Holy Ghost, Vine describes it as “those who share in a heavenly calling, or have held, or will hold, a regal position in relation to the earthly, messianic kingdom.” BDAG renders it, “sharing in a heavenly calling,” while Robertson, as others, says that is an actual spiritual experience or participation.
And tasting the good word of God and the powers of the world to come is the same word above which is an actual experience.
The definitions of these terms leave no doubt whatsoever that the persons spoken of were genuine Christians who had experienced salvation and for some reason ended up denying the doctrine that saved them.
Why would anybody want to be “renewed” to a false experience? If they were always lost, then why is it impermissible for them to experience genuine repentance? This passage would then, in effect, be damning people who were already damned without the hope of ever getting saved to boot. Given that the previous condition was clearly a state of revelation and genuine experience with God, to apostatize is then understood as an extremely grave matter for which there is no remedy. How can you fall away from something you never had?
LikeLike
April 4, 2021 at 8:23 pm
So much for unconditional love … I guess that doesn’t really exist, not even with the Lord of glory. Good luck with keeping up your end of the bargain… see you in Hell.
Naz
LikeLike
April 5, 2021 at 7:38 pm
scalia ………. lmao —- it’s you that avoids answering our questions and clearly stating your position because although you are delusional you are not crazy.
lol ……… your idea of engagement is for us to accept that your silliness proves our mountain of evidence doesn’t say what it clearly says. that’s why i thought you were roman catholic —– you make the same delusional arguments as they do. a wise man told me years ago to look around and see who agrees with you —– bible believing Christians agree with me & those that want to disprove “mere Christianity” agree with you. it should give you pause but hilariously it doesn’t.
and my interpretation of those verses are correct and it’s hilarious your side mentions it when discussing this topic as our side has so easily destroyed your misinterpretation of it. since our logical evidence proves enlightened does not mean indwelt only a delusional fool would not accept that and deny all of the evidence that proves once indwelt/sealed/born again/called & chosen by God
— He will not abandon you as He promised.
LikeLike
April 5, 2021 at 8:42 pm
Poster writes,
Will you please knock it off already with your stupid “avoids answering questions” already? I’ve already asked you what questions I haven’t answered only to get crickets from you. Just name one question I haven’t answered, and I’ll be glad to do so. Derek even asked you which questions you asked him, and you didn’t bother to reply to him either. Put up or shut up. Show me where you asked me questions that I didn’t answer.
No, my idea of engagement is actually addressing an argument and responding to the points made. Even this post doesn’t even touch Hebrews 6. And what’s “hilarious” is whenever you attempt to offer anything from the Scriptures (very feebly, I might add), as soon as you’re challenged, you stick your fingers in your ears, dive for cover, and proclaim victory.
One more time: Put up or shut up. Show me the questions I haven’t answered.
LikeLike
April 6, 2021 at 11:12 am
Paul V, you better “put up or shut up” or else the Pentecostal mafia may pay you a visit 🙂
Capiche ?
Naz
LikeLike
April 6, 2021 at 11:18 am
@Naz, so you think it’s appropriate to blister us for not answering questions, and when we ask which questions we haven’t answered, we get blistered again? Please note that he has two or three times now (at least) bellyached that we didn’t answer his questions, and he has at least twice been asked what questions weren’t answered. That kind of stuff gets old really fast.
LikeLike
April 6, 2021 at 11:28 am
scalia ……….. lmao. this format is not the best —- but where did you state your position clearly on this topic as i asked of you ? all you’ve done is play the lying retard game beating your silly faith alone is false/God can condemn those He called, that accepted His free gift, claimed.
LOL ………… no you have proven you idea of engagement is as i stated —– because we presented our evidence, proved yours false, proved your counter points false and shown you the errors your side makes. and you keep insisting we are the delusional ones.
LOL …………… you never gave evidence we are wrong ….. that there are 2 types of faith —- 1 that saves that comes with works & 1 that doesn’t save whether it has works or not. that God will not abandon those He called, that accepted His free gift and He claimed.
LOL …………. all you proved is what we have always stated —— a false/dead cannot save you & God will condemn Christians that He hasn’t called, that haven’t accepted His free gift and He hasn’t claimed.
LikeLike
April 6, 2021 at 11:36 am
Naz ……….. it’s too funny. did i miss where scalia stated his position clearly ?
because i didn’t see it ……. it’s hilarious people like him can’t see how simple this topic is.
it’s not by your works because it’s by Jesus’ works but if you have the right kind of faith you should bear fruit —- follow Jesus’ example.
if Jesus didn’t do what He did nobody could be saved period.
it’s hilarious because that’s one of the pillars of biblical Christianity that separates it from every other religion i know —– we can’t earn our salvation.
LikeLike
April 6, 2021 at 11:57 am
The poster writes,
Well, that’s one question and you said “questions,” but I asked for one and this one that you supplied is unclear. MY POSITION ON WHAT?? I’ve been as clear as day with my views, so what point is unclear to you?
LikeLike
April 7, 2021 at 9:17 am
scalia …………. lmao —– you are so delusional it’s hilarious. you have not been clear at all and you even denied what your are clearly arguing for —- works righteousness. stating things like where did i say faith+works ….. to funny you can’t see your error.
LOL ……….. yes questions and you avoided ALL of them like you did again.
but this will prove my point —– are you saying your works save you ? it’s a simple yes or no question and no matter how you answer it’ll prove you have a reprobate mind. because if you say yes —- we’ve proved it’s “not by works.” if you say no —- we told you over and over that is our position and works will be present but they don’t save you. and if you don’t answer yes or no you are playing the lying retard game just like all delusional fools do.
LOL ……….. that because since it’s not by works that just leaves faith or as we clearly have stated what “faith alone” means. not that there are not works which would be a dead/false faith but that those works present with a true/saving faith don’t and can’t save you as the numerous evidence we presented proves. and our evidence is so clear/straightforward if you can’t see it you have to be delusional aka the “strong delusion” the bible warns us of.
LikeLike
April 7, 2021 at 10:03 am
Poster writes,
Whether or not I’ve been “clear,” has no bearing on what question you asked me. In Post 153, I wrote:
First, I never argued that “faith+works=salvation.” You show me one post where I said that. My argument from the beginning (and for years) has been that faith is a work, but it is a functionally different kind of work from the works we are not saved by. You have thus made a false accusation. That faith is a work is defined as such by the Lord in John 6:29, it is recognized as such by numerous Bible commentators, including John Calvin, and it must be classified as a work pursuant to your own definition of the terms. Now, you may certainly disagree with my conclusions, but you’re being dishonest when you say that I’ve changed my argument.
And now, for at least the fourth time, what QUESTIONS?? The ones you asked were directly answered. So far, you’ve produced only one question, and that after numerous requests. So, you ask, “Are you saying your works save you?” And I’ve stated the answer to that numerous times.
And I asked you to define “works,” and your response was that it is law-keeping. And I replied that since God requires faith, that makes faith a law by definition. And since “works,” pursuant to your definition, is law-keeping, then faith is a work. Moreover, your definition of faith as trusting, believing, etc., makes faith an ACT since the words defining faith are verbs. Faith doesn’t cause act, faith IS act, which means that faith is doing something in order to obtain something, and that is the classical definition of “work” in a theological sense. On top of that, Jesus directly and specifically called belief a work, so there’s no logical way for any sane person to say otherwise.
I have also affirmed multiple times that when the Bible says that we’re not saved by works, given the above, it is a particular kind of work that we’re not saved by. The works of the law which pointed toward Christ are insufficient to save (the shadow is not the substance), and works of morality, though admirable, cannot save a person without the work of faith in Christ. Christ is and always has been the key, for all mankind must acknowledge His lordship and profess our inability to redeem ourselves. Obedience is the prerequisite of salvation as Acts 5:32, Hebrews 5:9, and 2 Thes. 1:8 plainly teach. And as the above debate demonstrates, a genuine Christian can be lost via disobedience. This is plainly and clearly taught multiple times. So, if you think that “not by works” nullifies all those Scriptures, the best you can hope for is a contradiction which of course undermines any appeal you make to the Bible. Consequently, “not by works” falls within a particular zone of meaning, and necessarily so, if we affirm the infallibility of God’s word.
LikeLike
April 7, 2021 at 4:21 pm
“Of course I disagree with all of your posts, but this snippet reminded me of the Twilight Zone’s A Nice Place to Visit. Have you seen it?”
I thought I’d seen them all, but apparently I hadn’t. So I looked it up…and yeah, you’re right, it does sound like what I was referring to.
If you disagree with my conclusion about an eternity in heaven, can you explain to me a more plausible view?
LikeLike
April 7, 2021 at 5:31 pm
(Just FYI, Paul, it would help if you gave some indication of which of my posts you’re referring to so I don’t have to guess. For example, I include quotes from your own posts.)
“lmao because you ignore ALL of the verses where God clearly states many are called but few are chosen/the tares are satans children.”
On the contrary. Unlike yourself, I don’t pick and choose when confronted with contradictory claims in the Bible, I simply point out the problematic consequences of those contradictions.
For instance, the Bible says both that God wants EVERYONE to be saved and that only a few will actually be saved. The Bible also states that God is all powerful and that he determines everything that happens, even our very steps. Therein lies the contradiction: If God determines what we will do, and he has the power to do anything, how does it make sense for him to both want everyone to be saved and not be able to achieve that goal?
You can’t blame it on sin, since God created the world knowing everything would go wrong right from the beginning and could have easily prevented that from being necessary. By far the most common reason for people not believing in him is not through willful ignorance or rebellion, but because they simply were born in regions that follow other religions and have no reason to believe Christianity is the “one true” religion, and belief is not a choice. God could EASILY clear up that problem by making himself known to everyone…for at least then they would know which god and which religion is the “right” one, allowing them to make an informed decision on whether to follow God or not.
LOL all you want, but this is a sincere conundrum that deserves a serious answer. If you can’t provide that, just let me know and we’ll leave it at that.
“LOL …… the only contradiction and proof we are wrong is in your and scalia’s deluded minds. the bible clearly teaches works are present. and the bible clearly teaches those works don’t/can’t save you.”
Since I don’t claim salvation is either grace or grace + works, nor do I particularly care which (if either) it is, this is hardly a fair accusation.
“and the bible also clearly teaches if God calls you and accepts your yes He won’t abandon you. and the bible clearly teaches if you haven’t been called and accepted by God He can condemn you.”
The problem I see here is these two passages:
• John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them.
• John 6:37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
This supports the Calvinist belief that only God decides who will be saved and who won’t…and if God decides to save you, you WILL be saved whether you want to or not. In either case, you have no choice. It contradicts the notion that we have the free will to choose whether to follow God/Jesus or not.
“LOL ………… neither you, scalia or those like you can’t understand because God has sent you a “strong delusion” so you’ll believe a lie and die in your sins and most likely be destroyed body and soul in the lake of fire. so don’t worry — it’s not eternal conscious torment.”
And who is at fault for sending us this “strong delusion”? That’s right, God is. So not only do we lack the free will to choose whether to follow God, but he is the one who deludes us into taking the wrong path. Am I wrong in reaching this conclusion? If so, how? And I would prefer you to not ignore the above passages.
“you both have stated you were in bible believing churches and left.”
Well, I’ve literally been inside Bible-believing churches and left, sure (and so have you and every other Christian, of course). But I’ve never been a member of any church, temple or synagogue, although I’ve visited in many of them, even participating in the rituals for salvation. I never felt anything, though, and I never had any evidence to bring about belief.
LikeLike
April 7, 2021 at 9:46 pm
Derek asks,
Of course I can and have done so on numerous occasions. I won’t do so here both because it’s off-topic and because you’ll typically debate it to death.
For the umpteenth time, Jason, wants us to keep our posts on-topic.
LikeLike
April 8, 2021 at 1:38 pm
Scalia ……….. lmao —- there you go again you didn’t even answer my simple yes or no question.
LOL …….. and the questions are right there. you read my posts containing the questions because you took quotes from them ……. but hilariously not my questions.
LOL …….. again with your silliness i don’t define faith/belief in God as a “work” for the reasons i stated but like all sane people i said —– so what if it is that doesn’t disprove my position at all and explained why. because since we proved “not by works” is biblically correct that only leaves “faith” as our means of being saved. and based on all of the evidence that type of “faith” that saves produces fruit aka law keeping/salutary acts/good works.
LOL ……… again your last post proves you are delusional and as i said it doesn’t matter how you answer —– do your works save you ? because you have proved you are playing the lying retard game. that because Naz and myself explained it crystal clear —— if you state your works do not save you you have to be delusional and having an argument with yourself proving in your delusional mind a faith w/o works can not save you.
LOL ……….. some of the questions which you will just ignore again are ….
did you prove a false/dead faith alone does not save you OR a true/saving faith alone does not save you ? or there’s just 1 type of faith ?
did you prove a person indwelt (plus the other descriptions that come along with that mentioned above) by the Holy Spirit can lose their salvation OR a person that say they are Christian but not indwelt by the Holy Spirit can lose their salvation ? or the Holy Spirit indwells all believers and jumps in/out of them as they sin/repent until they die either indwelt or not ?
LOL ………. because all you did oh delusional one is prove what our side has always agreed with —— a false/dead faith doesn’t/can’t save you & if you are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit you are not os, therefore you can’t be as.
LOL ………. it’s easy breezy to understand unless you are a delusional fool like yourself.
LikeLike
April 8, 2021 at 1:56 pm
derekmathais …………… lol this format is not the best —- but if you can’t follow my responses w/o me cutting and pasting your quotes in my response to bad.
they usually aply to the last post either addressed to me or clearly is for me because you quoted me or one of your last responses to another/to the casual reader.
LOL ………… i don’t pick and choose and you nor anyone has ever proved a contradiction with any bible verses. they are always logical and reasonable explanations for what you people say are contradictions. what i do is look at all of the biblical evidence on the subject at hand and as i posted here all of the evidence supports a true/saving faith saves and God will not abandon His children.
LOL ……… and you poor lost delusional people ignore this sound process and play this verse proves that verse wrong w/o the sound steps we take. see either you are delusional or scalia is delusional because your sides both make the same argument but come to a totally different conclusion —– people like you say they proved God is a liar and people like scalia say they proved we are liars. after looking at all of the evidence the only logical and reasonable conclusion is people like you and scalia are delusional. could i be wrong possible but not likely but it’s impossible im delusional because neither of you nor anybody on your side have disproven our evidence.
LOL ……… there’s no conundrum at all ——– God has children (wheat) and satan has children (tares) it’s a fallen world because of our failure not God’s and since He is all powerful He will fix it at His appointed time. just like He said He will in the bible.
LikeLike
April 8, 2021 at 2:51 pm
Poster writes,
Either English isn’t your mother tongue or reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. No, you never said the words, “Faith is a work,” and I never said that you said that. I said that your own words boxed you in so that consistency makes one applicable to the other. You said that “works,” defined, is “law keeping.” Since God commands faith, that makes obtaining faith a law, by definition! So, when a person obeys by believing, he is keeping a law of God and, hence, working pursuant to your own definition. Now, if English isn’t your mother tongue, please tell me which language you’re more comfortable using, and I’ll see what I can do. This isn’t rocket science, Post.
And I most definitely and clearly answered your question, so I don’t know how much clearer I can make it. Re-read the last post or use Google Translate if a re-read isn’t successful.
And that was repeatedly answered above. I’m through repeating myself. The next time you debate somebody, try to actually read their posts with some comprehension and try to put them together (if you intend to reply, that is) comprehensively so that you at least understand what they’re saying. If you don’t get it, then politely ask follow-up questions.
I clearly and unmistakably proved the former, and each time I challenged your objections, you turned tail and ran while screaming, “I won, I won!” For example, I cited 2 Tim. 2:12, “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us.” You “answered” that said Scripture doesn’t nullify every other verse which assures Christians of unconditional salvation. Well, that’s not a reply at all. You’re simply ignoring the plain text of the Bible (which can be repeated many times over) which clearly and unmistakably teach that a genuine Christian can lose salvation. You cannot legitimately say, “Well, these verses support my view so your view can’t be right. If the other verses clearly identify the audience as genuine Christians and clearly states that they can be lost, then you’re rationally obligated to harmonize the passages. To glibly state that they weren’t genuine Christians when the text clearly says that they were is not a rational answer. I’ve quoted passages like James 5:19-20 with nary a peep from you. So, this so-called “question” of years isn’t really a question at all. You just manufactured it to give the illusion that it wasn’t answered.
To my knowledge, you never asked me that directly except on the other thread, and I explicitly answered that multiple times. You did mention is at one of your talking points, but since I explicitly denied that, you’re firing blanks. I did say above that nobody alleges that the Holy Ghost “jumps in/out of people as they sin/repent, so you’ll need to fire up your memory neurons.
LikeLike
April 9, 2021 at 5:34 pm
scalia ………….. you stupidity has no limits. my definition of “works” didn’t box me in at all. all it did, because i accepted you defining faith/believing in Jesus as a work to move the discussion forward, was made me change my equation. which i did w/o a problem because my formula can still be faith=salvation because im using the correct type of faith …… a true/saving faith which our side has always put forward.
LOL ……….. i did read you answers and you certainly did not answer those questions as responses from Naz also proved.
LOL ………. no it doesn’t deny osas because to do that it would have to meet the criterion i correctly pointed out which it did not. which you did not refute either. plus further we have the apostle Paul’s clear teaching of the man saved even though he mentions he should be kicked out of the congregation/did not stop having sexual relations with his father’s wife/step mother.
LOL ……….. you accuse me of what you are doing —- that’s because your evidence only proves a person with a false/dead faith is not “OS” therefore not “AS” and that’s clearly what Naz, TR, myself and the correct true saving faith alone position has always been.
LOL ……… but you prove your true character again —– the Holy Spirit jumping in & out of a believer was always on the table whether you do not consider i directly asked you about it or not …….. you avoided it last discussion and you avoided it here. and all sane people know why you did and never will address that because the biblical evidence prove He will not abandon nor forsake you once He indwells you —– only not bless you if you are not following Gods will.
LikeLike
April 9, 2021 at 5:36 pm
Naz …………. this is why ilmao …………. people like scalia are delusional.
LikeLike
April 9, 2021 at 5:41 pm
Naz ……….. see this is why ilmao at delusional people like scalia. he proved we are wrong but we can not see his evidence.
LOL ………… while at least derekmathais can now say he is right and scalia is delusional.
LikeLike
April 9, 2021 at 10:23 pm
Poster writes,
Of course it boxed you in. I respectfully asked you to define the terms, and the logical consequence of your definitions entails the assertion that faith is a work. If “works,” according to you, is “law-keeping,” and if faith is required by God, then that requirement is a law by definition. It then follows that obedience to that law is keeping God’s law, and the instant you keep it, you’re working—according to you. Moreover, since you admit here that you “accepted…defining faith/believing in Jesus as a work..” then it cannot be rationally denied that faith is a work. Consequently, when the Bible says that we are not saved by works, it is clearly referring to a different kind of work we are saved by. What I have repeated perhaps dozens of times now is substantively what you are saying here. Welcome to the club!
I’m perfectly content to let any objective reader decide whether or not I’ve “answered” those questions. Perhaps you define “answer” as “something Poster agrees with.” In that case, then yes, of course I didn’t “answer” you or Naz. But if we use the dictionary definition of answer, we get: “a spoken or written reply or response to a question, request, letter, etc.” And I most definitely replied to every question Naz asked. Now, Naz alleges that I didn’t answer “many” of his questions, and I told him that I would apologize if he could show me just one question I didn’t reply to. And as the record proves, he didn’t. Now, it may be the case that I didn’t answer one of his questions, but it was not intentional.
And I replied to this back in Post 63, and Poster offered no rebuttal:
1 Corinthians 5
5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
If “this man” is unconditionally secure, then why should Corinth deliver him to Satan? Note, Corinth was not instructed to deliver the offender to Satan because keeping him would make them look bad to the community. Rather, they are instructed to disfellowship the offender “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” It is thus clear that the person in question was not saved and was in need of discipline in order to turn him around. Moreover, [the Apostle] Paul calls this apparent brother “wicked”:
13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
So, it is clear that the offender is a chronic offender who is not repenting of his deeds. And what, precisely, does the Bible say about a chronic offender?
1 John 3
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
So, we have at least two interpretive options: a) The offender was never saved (contrary [to the Poster’s] appeal to this man’s unconditional security); or b) This man was saved but had backslidden and is now a child of the devil. Living in unrepentant sin clearly demonstrates the parentage of Satan, as living holy demonstrates divine parentage. So, if this man were not saved, then this verse has no bearing on eternal security. If this man were saved and eternally secure, then whomever he was delivered to is irrelevant to saving of his spirit.
It is thus crystal clear that this passage bears no relevance to the OSAS doctrine.
I avoided it not whatsoever. I clearly denied here that we don’t believe that the Holy Ghost jumps in and out of a believer (see Post 35, for example). Moreover, in the previous thread, I wrote in Post 151:
Show me a legitimate quotation from any credible non-OSAS theologian who argues that the Holy Spirit jumps “in and out of” a believer. You’ll be looking for a long time because it doesn’t exist.
I also said in Post 151:
When a person develops a rebellious spirit, s/he will resist, grieve and finally quench the Holy Spirit. Being no longer “of us,” s/he’ll simply leave.
Thus, it’s not that God’s Spirit will leave every time a person sins. God will deal long with a person until He finally leaves.
In Post 153, I wrote:
Nobody says that the Holy Spirit jumps in and out of a believer. The fact that you think that proves OSAS demonstrates your total ignorance of the debate.
Poster replied: “The Holy Spirit doesn’t jump in and out of us over and over till we die in a state of grace.” And I replied in Post 155:
The key words are “over and over.” No theologian says that the Holy Spirit jumps in and out of a believer over and over. That is what I’m replying to. If you’re familiar with the debate, we wouldn’t having this silly side discussion.
You then interpreted my denial of the Holy Ghost’s jumping in and out of people as an endorsement of OSAS (see Post 159), which prompted this reply in Post 160:
It proves nothing of the kind. At best, it proves inartful wording on my part. Under no rational standard can my words be construed to advocate OSAS. First, I have clearly stated that I do not believe OSAS. Second, I have clearly argued against its concepts. Third, I was replying to your remark that the Spirit doesn’t jump out of believers “over and over.” I clarified that was my intent, and I averred from a post previous to 153 that a believer can “quench” the Spirit.
For you to turn that into an endorsement of OSAS is patently dishonest. I gave you every benefit of doubt and treated you with respect, but you’ve shown your true colors. Again, the very best you could honestly argue is that I worded a couple of my replies inaccurately. Instead of having the integrity to state that, you manufacture a bald-faced lie.
It’s at least a good thing that the readers of this blog are seeing how the OSAS doctrine manifests itself in the lives of its advocates. They argue that their doctrine isn’t a license to sin, yet they don’t hesitate to lie when caught in a logical vice. It’s a textbook example of the sloppy grace doctrine.
Paul, if you were going to lie, you should have made it less obvious. If you had any credibility, you’ve thrown it completely out the window.
Now, whether or not Poster or anybody else agrees with my conclusions, it is manifest that I explicitly answered Poster’s question both here and there. At that point, since it was thus clear to me that Poster is an arrant liar, I quit communicating with him in that thread. Post 163 was my final address to him.
LikeLike
April 10, 2021 at 12:20 pm
scalia …………… poor delusional scalia. you continue playing your lying retard game. you people are intentionally vague so we can’t pin you down and you remain in your delusion.
LOL …….. of course you didn’t answer but again that’s not the point —- delusional people never do. the point is if you are a bible believing Christian indwelt by the Holy Spirit you should answer and clearly as Naz, TR and myself do. that’s so the discussion, you people always want an argument, can move forward.
LOL ……… no it did not pin me down nor can it pin me down. because im using the correct meaning of “not by works” which is it’s not by my works/not by any kind of my works/i can’t earn my salvation by my works. so even if believing is a work therefore faith is a work my formula is not works=salvation.
it would be Jesus=salvation or God’s grace=salvation. so im still not boxed in because faith+works=salvation is your sides formula.
LOL ……… it’s faith+works with your side dismissing not by works as those works being ceremonial works. which we destroyed above. because that is what the argument has always been and at first what you were stating. but now as seems you are changing the argument and saying you disproved our position which you have not as i explained above —- we just have to change the formula we got from you to correct what you say is a fact believing=work.
LOL …….. your argument doesn’t refute ours because our point holds —— that person is committing willful sin and he will still be saved. to refute us the apostle Paul would have to state his spirit won’t be saved unless he repents before he dies. since he doesn’t we are right. so even if you have another verse, even by the apostle Paul, that says a person committing willful sin will be damned no problem because of the rule the apostle Paul already set —unless it clearly states that person was indwelt by the Holy Spirit too. then it’s not a problem for me it’s a problem for “mere Christianity” because that would break the law of contradictions.
if he was not OS his spirit won’t be saved in the day of the Lord. and if he was
not AS his spirit won’t be saved in the day of the Lord because of willful sin.
LOL ………… so now you admit the Holy Spirit doesn’t jump in and out of a believer so they die indwelt by the Holy Spirit but they are not saved on the day of the Lord ? He just leaves ?
“When a person develops a rebellious spirit, s/he will resist, grieve and finally quench the Holy Spirit. Being no longer “of us,” s/he’ll simply leave.”
too funny ……. the Holy Spirit abandons you ? that means God is a liar. quenching as i proved just means to dampen and that only means you lose God’s blessing/comfort/rewards when you are out of His will on earth and rewards in the next life but you are still granted eternal life/salvation in the day of the Lord.
LOL …………. no it’s you that is not familiar with the debate —– because the person the apostle Paul mentions does keep dampening the Holy Spirit and he is still going to be saved in the day of the Lord. no one can be as dumb as you which only leaves you are under the “strong delusion” the bible warns us of.
LOL ……… osas is not a license to sin. if you think it is a license to sin you have a false/dead faith. which is to left turn heresy of your right turn works righteousness heresy.
LOL …………. you never communicated with anybody as far as i can see —– just kept spewing stupidity.
LikeLike
April 10, 2021 at 12:38 pm
“Being no longer “of us,” s/he’ll simply leave.”
missed this at first as you seem to be jamming to different things together. the above proves “s/he” was never indwelt by the Holy Spirit —- if it refers to the verse i believe it does. it’s for people like you that, based on your own words, have left a bible believing congregation for heresy. those people were never OS. and since they usually either end up like derekmathais or you they most likely never will be saved because they keep rejecting the Holy Spirit and go further and further into rebellion —– there is no God or into heresy works righteousness.
LikeLike
April 10, 2021 at 12:52 pm
Naz………. another of their problems is they seem to believe ALL baptized Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
April 10, 2021 at 12:56 pm
Naz…… another one of their problems is they seem to believe — ALL baptized Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit regardless of the type of faith they have.
LikeLike
April 10, 2021 at 1:58 pm
Naz ………. sorry for the double posts — looks like that happened a few times.
anyway i’ll just add —- because it’s hilarious how reprobate minds like scalia’s works. just a quick clarification for you ………..
based on him saying the Holy Spirit can abandon/leave an indwelt believer i like im sure you did interpreted that to mean —– if you commit a mortal sin the Holy Spirit can not tolerate that and leaves until you repent and then indwells you again —– repeat as req’d. because if not the obvious problem is —- how long will the Holy Spirit keep indwelling you until you repent ? and how many times do you have to commit a mortal sin willfully before the Holy Spirit leaves ? and if the Holy Spirit can stay in a person willfully committing mortal sin how does that disprove our position ?
so of course i didn’t lie and scalia is seeing only what he wants to as usual. as i previously stated —- if the roles were reversed i would’ve stated oops we have a miscommunication and cleared it up right away and moved on.
LikeLike
April 11, 2021 at 12:40 am
Poster writes,
And of course it pins you down because they’re your own words. You were given an open opportunity to define “works,” and you did so by calling it “law-keeping.” And since exercising faith is “law-keeping,” then faith is a work. And since, in accordance with your own words, faith is a work, then it follows that you are asserting that a person is saved by a work.
Now, you want to modify your definition by differentiating “my works” from faith, but you do not define what you mean by “my works.” If you mean the works that we think up that may insulate us against the wrath of a God we don’t even serve (e.g. giving to the American Cancer Society, helping old ladies cross the street, or reducing our carbon footprint), then nobody disagrees with that. But if by “my works” you mean obedience to God’s commands, precisely because God commands it and you want to honor God by following His will, then again you’ll need to differentiate that from faith, because faith, too, is a work commanded by God, and that, too, requires our obedience in honor to God.
I never stated that “works” were limited solely to the ceremonial law, and that’s why you keep falsely alleging that I’ve changed my argument. My argument has not changed one whit.
The person in question that Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 5, if he were genuinely saved, would not need to be “delivered unto Satan” in order to be saved. From an OSAS perspective, it is irrelevant, root and branch, where a person goes to church or whether he gets buffeted by Satan because he is eternally secure. Paul did not command Corinth to disfellowship the man over situational optics; he was to be delivered to Satan in order to to save him. But if he were already saved, Paul is essentially saying, “Deliver this saved man to Satan so he can be saved.” That’s like saying, “Give this citizen this test so he can be a citizen,” which is absurd.
And it is relevant whether a person practices sin and it certainly contradicts your assertion that OSAS entails holiness. If works must be present (if but reactive) in a genuine believer’s life, then it becomes impossible for said believer to practice sin:
1 John 3
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
So, you assert that this man was a genuine believer and, thus, eternally secure, yet he was also living in unrepentant sin. This is, of course, impossible given the above verse and given your clear statements about works being present in OSAS believers (a joke, considering your repeated dishonesty here). This verse and your own doctrine render it IMPOSSIBLE for a person to live in unrepentant sin. Thus, said person could not have been a genuine believer if your doctrine is correct. Whoever is born of God CANNOT SIN (practice sin).
And I’ll close by addressing this unbelievable statement. After quoting several times from a thread a little over a year old wherein I repeatedly denied that the Holy Ghost jumps in and out of a person, you nonetheless state that I “now admit” that?? After proving that I denied the same thing IN THIS VERY THREAD, you have the gall to say that I “now admit” that?? You are really beneath contempt and are one of the lowest, sorriest excuses of a Christian that I’ve seen in a long time.
In Post 250, you said that “you avoided it [that topic] last discussion and you avoided it here,” and in Post 247, you also accused me of ignoring it. Now, since I clearly demonstrated in my last post that you were lying, you attempt to distract from that by attempting to prove that I am wrong about the Holy Ghost leaving a person. But you forget the last paragraph in my last post:
Now, whether or not Poster or anybody else agrees with my conclusions, it is manifest that I explicitly answered Poster’s question both here and there. At that point, since it was thus clear to me that Poster is an arrant liar, I quit communicating with him in that thread.
I can concede arguendo that I’m wrong about God jumping in and out of a person, but at this juncture, that is entirely irrelevant. You could have said that your memory neurons were misfiring and could have apologized for forgetting that I indeed didn’t “ignore” or “avoid” the question. Not so with the likes of you. You double down and insist that you weren’t lying, not because you forgot, but because I happen to be wrong about the subject! But even if I am wrong, you are still lying, and repeatedly so, when you accuse me of avoiding or ignoring the question. I demonstrably did no such thing. Over and over, you exemplify to your own dishonor the caricature of OSAS proponents that your doctrine is a license to sin. You tell bald-faced lies without the slightest modicum of shame.
LikeLike
April 11, 2021 at 12:47 pm
scalia ………… lmao —- you just keep proving what a delusional fool you are and it’s you that’s the liar not me. you don’t have to say the words directly but your arguments prove that’s what you mean.
LOL …….. this is what your side says —– you commit a mortal sin and you are cut off from God/lose “sanctifying grace.” so you have to confess your sin before the relationship is repaired —– then basically you start all over again except you don’t need to be baptized again. and since as the bible proves as long as you are sorry —– you can do this over and over you & can be forgiven over and over until you die in a state of grace OR not.
LOL …….. so that proves im not lying, it’s you falsely callingy God and me both liars. too funny.
LOL …….. but back to exposing your delusion because we are not delusional as our petra is trusting in God. see it’s all very easy to understand —- sadly since you have a reprobate mind you can’t.
if i die indwelt by the Holy Spirit am i saved ? Yes. i will be granted eternal life at the Second Coming.
do your own words prove once im indwelt by the Holy Spirit He won’t immediately leave me when i sin ? Yes. right there you changed the argument.
does the bible clearly prove if i repent God will forgive me even if i sin over and over ? Yes.
LOL ……….. simple logic chain that proves OS you are AS unless God is a liar and He will abandon us for committing sins that He knew we’d commit before He called us/we accepted His free gift/He claimed us as His child.
LikeLike
April 11, 2021 at 1:06 pm
scalia …………. lmao again you prove you are delusional.
LOL ……….. still not boxed in because your faith/belief/believing in Jesus even if a work does not save you. again you prove how delusional you are —- that would mean you are denying ALL of the things Jesus did that are the only reason your can be saved. so again, by your argument you are stating works=salvation same works the bible clearly teaches do not save you and warns us if you believe your works save you —– that is a false gospel and you are accursed.
LOL …………. but that’s the argument —– the works in not by works are ceremonial law. so again you change the argument. but as we proved it’s irrelevant because “not by works” means no works done by you can save you.
LOL …………. of course he would be delivered over to satan to afflict his flesh because he is out of the will of God. an indwelt person being out of the will of God does not cost him His salvation but God will not bless them/keep them/answer their prayers/reward them/etc……. until s/he repents and returns back under His will. your whole theology is perverted to protect your works righteous heresy —– proving you are delusional/have a reprobate mind.
LOL ………….. that’s right you are wrong and im not lying —- you took what i said which as i proved above is the logical and reasonable conclusion of your arguments and falsely accused me of lying. typical trick of the enemy of Christ.
LikeLike
April 11, 2021 at 2:27 pm
Poster writes,
So, trusting in Jesus doesn’t save you? Your words are, “…your faith/belief/believing in Jesus even if a work does not save you…” Okaaaay. And I never denied that what Jesus has done saves us, but after that last comment, you’re really beginning to lose touch.
I never changed a thing, Bub. Part of the works we’re not saved by is the ceremonial law, but it’s not limited to that, as I’ve stated multiple times now. Here’s one of the many differences between you and me. When I accuse you of something, I can back it up with exact quotations. When you accuse me of something, you quote nothing and make an empty claim. You can’t quote one sentence of mine which says that the non-saving works are exclusively within the ceremonial law of Moses. In fact, I’ve explicitly said otherwise. I did reply to a statement of yours which attempted to generalize works from a citation of Paul. And I correctly replied that Paul was clearly speaking of the Mosaic law in the passage you cited. But since dishonesty is routine with you, I don’t guess you’ll lose any sleep over it.
Your tap dance isn’t working, Post.
1 John 3
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Based on your theology, it is impossible for a genuinely born again person to live in sin—HE CANNOT SIN. So, it’s not possible for the person in question to have been really born again. In fact, Paul never says that he was born again. Just because he attended the Corinthian church does not mean that he was born again. But even if he were, your rewording of the passage doesn’t change what it says:
1 Corinthians 5
5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
But according to OSAS, his spirit is already saved. His salvation status cannot change WHETHER OR NOT HE IS HANDED OVER TO SATAN. Paul does not say, “Hand him over to Satan so he can get more goodies in the afterlife. He was to be handed over to Satan so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Big difference, Bub. Moreover, Paul called him “wicked”:
1 Corinthians 5
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Note, this man’s deeds were not called wicked; rather, he was called wicked. The Bible clearly says that whoever is born of God cannot sin; hence, if this person was living in unrepentant sin, then he could not have been born again. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it, Post.
As of this point, you are the only person who’s still following this thread who will deny that you lied, and you know you’re lying when you deny it. Regardless whether I’m correct in my stance and regardless whether you’re correct in the logical extension of my stance, you still repeatedly lied by saying that I both ignored and avoided your charge that I believe the Holy Ghost jumps in and out of people. I proved both here and there that I never ignored or avoided that charge. I repeatedly denied that that’s what I believe, and that is exactly what you are lying about. You are lying and you know that you are lying. I NEVER IGNORED NOR AVOIDED THE CHARGE. Even if I answered incorrectly, I nonetheless answered you repeatedly
LikeLike
April 11, 2021 at 10:35 pm
scalia ……….. lmao —- you are the liar not me. my only mistake was believing you weren’t delusional. and if you would’ve just clearly explained your delusional take on faith alone/osas from the beginning we could’ve wrapped this up last go round in a few back and forths.
LOL ……… so to save the next poor bible believing Christian your stupidity you need to admit right away —– i don’t take the usual approach to this topic. my position is believing in Jesus is a “work” so that really means we are saved by “works” so your understanding of “not by works” is wrong. not lying that’s the truth based on your comments. but feel free to spin it your way. but the Jesuits are way better at this and you should follow their argument —- it’s ceremonial works.
LOL ………….. again tell people right away in your scenario the Holy Spirit can leave an indwelt believer. now we have rock solid bible evidence that’s false but don’t let that stop you. again —- the Jesuit way of stating it is way better …. you just lose sanctifying grace. that way you don’t look like a complete moron calling God a liar and you can avoid the whole trying to use the OT to disprove the NT as a bonus. and for the casual reader if you don’t know where the NT clearly teaches (both Jesus & Paul) the Holy Spirit will not leave an indwelt believer just google away —- lots of very good apologetics on that topic.
LikeLike
April 12, 2021 at 7:56 am
@Paulie the Prevaricating Poster:
1 John 3
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Based on your theology, it is impossible for a genuinely born again person to live in sin—HE CANNOT SIN. So, it’s not possible for the person in question to have been really born again. In fact, Paul never says that he was born again. Just because he attended the Corinthian church does not mean that he was born again. But even if he were, your rewording of the passage doesn’t change what it says:
1 Corinthians 5
5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
But according to OSAS, his spirit is already saved. His salvation status cannot change WHETHER OR NOT HE IS HANDED OVER TO SATAN. Paul does not say, “Hand him over to Satan so he can get more goodies in the afterlife. He was to be handed over to Satan so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Big difference, Bub. Moreover, Paul called him “wicked”:
1 Corinthians 5
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Note, this man’s deeds were not called wicked; rather, he was called wicked. The Bible clearly says that whoever is born of God cannot sin; hence, if this person was living in unrepentant sin, then he could not have been born again. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it, Post.
So, what part of CANNOT SIN don’t you understand?
LikeLike
April 12, 2021 at 2:13 pm
Scalia …………. still lmao because it’s you that doesn’t understand.
LOL ……….. wrong again —- based on my theology it’s impossible for a person to be perfect which is God’s standard. that’s why we correctly understand verses like that —- because we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit/covered in the blood of the perfect Lamb we are acceptable to God. He turns away from our imperfections as He took on our sin and we took on His righteousness.
LOL ……….. that’s right —- osas means once indwelt by the Holy Spirit He won’t leave you. so —– you are OS when He indwells you and AS because
He won’t leave you. and you can look it up but here’s a couple proving me 100% correct.
Romans Chapter 8 and John 14: 16 – 18
LOL ………… but according to your previous comments the Holy Spirit can stay indwelt in an unrepentant sinner until that sinner is totally lost which proves you wrong. because if God is ALL knowing why indwell some one who will fall away & why leave if He can stay that long —- no need to answer because the answer is obvious —– He just wouldn’t indwell that person.
LOL ……….. i know you are delusional but the closer you get to God the more you realize how evil you are —– of course if you are a works righteousness heretic that doesn’t apply.
LikeLike
April 12, 2021 at 3:09 pm
@Paulie the Prevaricating Poster, your explanation cannot work because the man in wasn’t merely imperfect; he was living in unrepentant sin which means that he had deliberately chosen a sinful lifestyle and would not relinquish it. That has NO BEARING on the imperfections inherent in every person.
What part of CANNOT SIN don’t you understand?
1 John 3
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Thus, this passage does NOT say that a person would never sin. It clearly states that a person CANNOT PRACTICE SIN. But the man in Corinth was clearly practicing sin, so by definition, in accordance with your doctrine, said man COULD NOT have been born again.
Whoever is born of God CANNOT SIN (live in sin). Since the man in question was living in sin, consequently, in accordance with OSAS, said man could not have been saved.
LikeLike
April 13, 2021 at 2:55 pm
scalia ………….. still lmao because yes it does work —- you are taking our sound biblical argument and comparing it to your heresy and saying it’s false when it’s you that’s in error.
LOL …………. lines up perfectly with ALL of our evidence including the marriage/bride of Christ analogy. once married (OS) you are always married (AS) because the union is consummated meaning you said yes to Jesus and He said yes to you. so once that happens you will live for ever as Jesus is going to live forever —- no divorce even if you leave him, play the whore, etc……. that’s because He knew what you would do before He said yes.
LOL ………….. no bible verses saying once indwelt by the Holy Spirit He will leave you period. but there are ones saying once indwelt by the Holy Spirit He will not leave you.
LOL ……….. but the bible is clear and it’s for believers —- “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” and the context is on going sin, which means we can’t be sinless. again you prove your lack of understanding —- those OS people will confess their sins because they have a true/saving faith. people not OS have a false/dead faith so they’ll keep sinning w/o regret as they believe the opposite heresy of you regarding faith alone/osas which is —– faith alone means you have a license to sin. but again for the umpteenth time that your brain can’t understand is not what we profess —- that’s a false/dead faith.
LOL …………. see you play the lying retard game/use S. I. G. N. (ie. shame, insults, guilt, need to be right)/what we call dragon speak —– to avoid your poor argument. and i just throw that stuff right back at you and im better at it because i was in the cult that perfected it for approx the first 30yrs of my life.
LOL ………… you have not presented any evidence our position is wrong period. as i said all that you proved is what we agree with —— a false/dead faith can’t save you & if you are not OS you can’t be AS.
LikeLike
April 13, 2021 at 3:55 pm
Paulie, the Prevaricating Poster, writes:
Actually, that’s not the case. No wedding has taken place:
2 Corinthians 11
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
Paul is clearly speaking to believers who are in an espousal relationship with the Lord. And it is definitely within the parameters of the law to put away an unfaithful “wife” while still espoused:
Matthew 1
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
A Jewish espousal made both parties legally married, but there was no such thing as a “once married, always married” provision for espoused parties. If the woman were unfaithful, the engagement could be broken.
It doesn’t matter what the Bible says in your eyes. You’ve been shown passage after passage which clearly rebuts everything you’re saying, so anything you say is devoid of any rational heft. Even when irrefutable evidence of your lying is presented, you deny lying, so what difference does it make if you reject clear biblical proof? You accused me of ignoring and avoiding the subject of the Holy Ghost jumping in and out of people, when I’ve proven from this thread and the previous one that I clearly did not avoid or ignore it. Moreover, After showing you that more than a year ago, I denied that the Holy Ghost jumps in and out of people, you stated that I was “now” admitting that. You are an arrant liar and have no credibility whatsoever.
Now, I’m also perfectly content for any reader to decide whether or not such proof has been provided. I’ve produced passage after passage which demonstrates that genuine believers can be lost. You don’t want to believe it, so you deny it. Big deal.
But that’s not the case with the man in 1 Cor. 5. He was not confessing and he was not repenting. He had chosen sin and was living therein and refusing to repent. It was so bad that the Apostle Paul heard about it and commanded Corinth to put him out of the church. It has nothing to do with the common fallibility of all humans, including Christians:
1 John 3
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
God’s seed makes it IMPOSSIBLE for a born again Christian to “commit sin.” Since this clearly has nothing to do with a Christian’s common fallibility (else that would be impossible too), John is clearly speaking of another category of sinning.
The Greek word for “commit” is ποιεῖ, which in this context, according to BDAG, is to “practice” or to “keep.” Vine says that it’s “a continuous habit.” Robertson says, “he cannot go on sinning” as in “continuing” to sin. So, it is clear that this has nothing to do with the marks of imperfection in people. It rather points to a habit of sin that is one’s “practice.” In other words, it is something that a person adopts with regularity with no intention of relinquishing (which is what a practice is). This is what is IMPOSSIBLE for a born again Christian. And since the man in Corinth had both chosen to commit sexual sin and would not relinquish it, it was then his voluntary habit and practice. Consequently, this man could not have been born again.
LikeLike
April 14, 2021 at 4:42 am
1 John 3
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
“In other words, it is something that a person adopts with regularity with no intention of relinquishing (which is what a practice is). This is what is IMPOSSIBLE for a born again Christian”
Scalia, I don’t want to interrupt your parley with Paul, but you have just proved my point of eternal security or OSAS. Perhaps this will help you understand where I am coming from.
I have tried to stress that a born again believer undergoes a change at his spiritual core when he is indwelt by the Spirit of God. I also have said that this change cannot be taken lightly and cannot be attributed to a “sinners prayer” or from ceremony such as baptism. The union with Christ CANNOT be broken and a person’s desires are changed as God writes His laws (not Moses) on a believer’s heart.
Therefore, since it is IMPOSIIBLE for a real Christian to “practice sin”, a real Christian does no longer “live” in sin and CANNOT live in sin because he lives (abides) in Christ and Christ lives in him. Therefore, it is impossible for a real Christian to lose his salvation because he is born of God and God’s “seed” remains in him. This is the down payment of Ephesians 1, the guarantee of eternal life.
Furthermore, since a Christian CANNOT practice sin and thus CANNOT live in sin any longer, sin has no power over him and he is eternally separated from sin. Therefore if a Christian is eternally separated from sin, there is no force in the universe that can snatch him out of God’s hands. Therefore he is eternally secure – OSAS.
That does not mean that a Christian will not ever sin, as you said, but a Christian that lies in not a liar, he’s a Christian that lied. A Christian that commits adultery is not an adulterer, he’s a Christian that committed adultery (heaven forbid) .
We are not the sum total of our behavior if we are born of God. And we do not “practice sin” because we are born of God, not because of our obedience or adherence to laws, rules or morality. We are not the “unrighteous” of 1 Cor 6, we are the Saints of 1 Cor 6 ….. “such were some of you”.
The guy in 1 Cor 5 was a “so called brother” and they removed him from the church. I don’t think Paul knew if this guy was saved or not based on the sorts of things he did. He was hanging around with the church and needed to be removed whether he was saved or not. If I were to guess, I would say this guy was not saved to begin with but we don’t know the whole story.
So my point is a genuine Christian CANNOT lose their salvation PERIOD. We are the good soil, not the rocky soil or soil with weeds and thorns.
Hebrews 6 needs to be interpreted in this light, those Jews were admonished to enter God’s rest and not harden their heart. That does not describe a Christian’s heart. These Jews that “fell away” from the gospel back to Moses did not drink in the rain that often fell upon it – they are not good soil. If there are portions of Hebrews which addresses Christians directly, then you must allow for a mixed company of believers/non-believers/people on fence for the audience as I also have mentioned several times. Just as the guy in 1 Cor 5 was hanging around with the church but was not really part of the church.
Naz
LikeLike
April 14, 2021 at 7:07 am
Sorry, to add to my previous post …..
Therefore, if a Christian cannot “practice sin”, that is, the very thing that would disqualify or make them lose their salvation in your view, then logically a Christian CANNOT lost their salvation.
Scalia, I think the logic is air tight. I know there are scriptures that you interpret that goes against this idea but only because you have been trained to read them in this manner and are stuck in the Pentecostal loop of thinking.
Eternal security is a major and fundamental doctrine and is what the whole hope of the Christian faith is based on. When you take away eternal security, our Christian faith and hope is demolished and we are left to fend for ourselves just as all other religions of the world that don’t have this hope.
If we can lose eternal life, then eternal life is not eternal but temporary life and God is a liar.
Naz
LikeLike
April 14, 2021 at 8:56 am
One of the side discussions we’ve been having under this topic is whether the doctrine of OSAS is a license to sin. One the one hand, OSAS proponents argue that sin can never separate a “genuine” believer from Christ. Hence, said believer is eternally secure no matter what he or she does. And on the other hand, though good works cannot save a person, they will be characteristic of a Christian’s life. Good works are the consequence of genuine faith, not the cause thereof. Naz spoke of something metaphysically happening to an individual that causes good works, occasional imperfections (sins) notwithstanding. Thus, sin can no longer characterize a person’s life, even if it is present to a degree. If a person is genuinely born again, holiness will evident.
Past discussions and the present one belie that contention. Some time ago, I asked Naz about a hypothetical person who was a genuine believer who fell on hard times and ended up becoming a Mafia hit man. I asked repeatedly whether said person would be saved, and Naz refused to answer. I asked him if his position affirmed that a man can routinely commit murder and still be saved. He refused to answer. If memory serves me correctly, I think Naz finally (after a couple of threads) stated that such a person could have originally been born again because righteousness would prevent a person from doing that. He thus implied that a person living in unrepentant sin could not do such things.
We now fast-forward to the present. The Prevaricator and I have been going back-and-forth over whether the fornicator in 1 Cor. 5 was genuinely born again. And part of our “discussion” (I use the term very loosely) has revolved around 1 John 3:9…
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
We know that The Prevaricator insists that this person was a true believer, and we also know that Naz leaves open the possibility that he was saved (“we don’t know the whole story”). Thus, Naz’s “guess” is that the man was a pretender, but he could have been a true believer. So, what can we gather from these OSAS believers? You can repeatedly commit fornication, you can refuse to repent over the fornication, and you can be kicked out of your OSAS-believing church over it, and still be saved. And what if said person was run over by a Roman chariot after he walked out of church? What if he fell out of a boat and drowned? What if a rock fell off a cliff and crushed his head? Even if he were disfellowshipped and living in unrepentant sin, he would still be saved if he at one time was a genuine believer! If that is not a license to sin, then NOTHING is a license to sin.
If routinely committing fornication and refusing to repent over it to the point of being disfellowshipped isn’t practicing sin, then nothing is. I would have thought that Naz’s more moderate tone in this thread would have prevented that conclusion, at least from his perspective, but his comments in Post 269, though more moderate than The Prevaricator’s, takes the same position. They are essentially saying, “Yes, good works necessarily follow a genuine Christian’s life, but good works do not necessarily follow a genuine Christian’s life.” How that for “airtight” logic?
Naz insists that one lie doesn’t make a Christian a liar. One act of adultery doesn’t make a Christian an adulterer. So, I guess one murder doesn’t make a Christian a murderer? One act of mass murder doesn’t make you a mass murderer? One act of treason doesn’t make you a traitor? One act of blasphemy doesn’t make you a blasphemer? Naz is interpreting the questioned acts as a matter of habit. However, the man in Corinth was certainly making fornication his habit, so on Naz’s own terms, he must have been a fornicator. So, given all the positions that Naz has staked out, he shouldn’t hesitate to say that unrepentant sin clearly shows that a person is not a genuine believer because true believers cannot practice sin.
With respect to the genuine believers in James, Hebrews, Galatia, and Corinth, the above arguments show clearly that Christians can lose their salvation. And that’s not the exclusive position of Oneness Pentecostals. That’s the position of most of Christianity. None of the authorities I cited were Oneness believers. The conclusions follow from both the text and context of the passages discussed. In a thread that’s over 270 posts long, it is unlikely that new readers will take the time to read every post, but there’s no point in repeating them. No reasonable reading of any of those passages will yield the conclusion that the persons in question were pretenders.
Now, with respect to 1 John 3:9, I’ve been careful to qualify my arguments as within the context of OSAS teaching and the statements made in this thread by The Prevaricator and Naz. And I’ll be happy to answer Naz’s objections once the “license” matter plays out. In fact, I had a strong hunch that my comments on that verse would pull Naz out of “retirement” to score what he thinks is a “gotcha.” And if he had come forward and unequivocally stated that if the man in Corinth was living in unrepentant sin, there is no way, pursuant to 1 John 3:9, that he could have been born again, he would have at least been consistent, though wrong in his OSAS conclusion. His reply above clearly belies his insistence that OSAS is not a license to sin.
Jude
4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
April 14, 2021 at 12:03 pm
Correction: The following is incorrectly written:
If memory serves me correctly, I think Naz finally (after a couple of threads) stated that such a person could have originally been born again because righteousness would prevent a person from doing that. He thus implied that a person living in unrepentant sin could not do such things.
I should have written:
If memory serves me correctly, I think Naz finally (after a couple of threads) stated that such a person could not have originally been born again because righteousness would prevent a person from doing that (routinely committing murder). He thus implied that a person living in unrepentant sin could not be born again.
LikeLike
April 14, 2021 at 12:04 pm
scalia ………… lmao —- again you just keep proving how delusional you are.
LOL ……….. you ….. “The Greek word for “commit” is ποιεῖ, which in this context, according to BDAG, is to “practice” or to “keep.” Vine says that it’s “a continuous habit.” Robertson says, “he cannot go on sinning” as in “continuing” to sin. So, it is clear that this has nothing to do with the marks of imperfection in people. It rather points to a habit of sin that is one’s “practice.” In other words, it is something that a person adopts with regularity with no intention of relinquishing (which is what a practice is). This is what is IMPOSSIBLE for a born again Christian. And since the man in Corinth had both chosen to commit sexual sin and would not relinquish it, it was then his voluntary habit and practice. Consequently, The Greek word for “commit” is ποιεῖ, which in this context, according to BDAG, is to “practice” or to “keep.” Vine says that it’s “a continuous habit.” Robertson says, “he cannot go on sinning” as in “continuing” to sin. So, it is clear that this has nothing to do with the marks of imperfection in people. It rather points to a habit of sin that is one’s “practice.” In other words, it is something that a person adopts with regularity with no intention of relinquishing (which is what a practice is). This is what is IMPOSSIBLE for a born again Christian. And since the man in Corinth had both chosen to commit sexual sin and would not relinquish it, it was then his voluntary habit and practice. Consequently, this man could not have been born again.”
LOL ……… can’t you see your error ??? he is because the apostle Paul said he is. therefore, either you are wrong or the apostle is wrong. if he wasn’t born again the apostle Paul would have said something along the lines as you just said —– kick him out because he refuses to repent therefore he can not be “born again.” he wouldn’t have said anything about him being saved period.
LOL ……… and again your other error —- if the apostle Paul did not profess he will be saved what would that prove ??? nothing Naz, TR and myself don’t already agree with. because not with standing what the apostle Paul wrote —we would state that person’s behavior would indicate he has a false/dead faith.
can’t know for sure but the indication is he was not “born again” OS.
LikeLike
April 14, 2021 at 12:24 pm
Naz ………… i had hope when scalia finally kind of came clean about what he believes but alas …….. he’s to far gone to see even when i threw it back in his face.
he’s got some really weird takes on the traditional arguments against faith alone more traditional on osas. although on osas he does indicate/imply the Holy Spirit does not leave immediately but waits around to see if repentance occurs ??? which has it’s own problems. the majority take seems to agree with the rcc, which has “sanctifying grace” removed immediately because He could not tolerate indwelling a person willfully committing mortal sin. and stand outside the door and knock to be let back in again once the sinner repented. therefore, my correct statement of jumps in/out of the believer over and over again. because as the bible clearly teaches God will keep forgiving your sin over and over again.
have you ever heard that kind of argument which appears to be —- that believing is a work therefore we are saved by works so “not by works” doesn’t mean the works that save us ??? again since he never really laid it out completely, because his kind never do, but that has to be it from the hints he’s given. in all my decades of arguing this topic from both sides ive never heard that before —- have you ? and is that your understanding of his position also?
see this is why ilol ………. why wouldn’t a person clearly explain there position w/o waffling if it’s not true and they’ve thought it through and can defend it.
LikeLike
April 14, 2021 at 1:06 pm
Paulie, the Prevaricating Poster, writes:
The error isn’t seen on my end because it doesn’t exist. You keep insisting that this man was born again, and you cannot deny that because you have multiple times cited him as an example of OSAS. The fact of the matter is that the Apostle Paul never called him saved. You have therefore made a warrantless assumption. Moreover, he was to be delivered to Satan so that his spirit “may” be saved. Paul is speaking with a future conditional with the goal or hope that the offender may one day be penitent. So, there is nothing in the direct text that indicates genuine faith in this man, especially since Paul called him wicked at the end of the chapter.
The citation from John is to demonstrate that no person genuinely born of God can practice sin. And since the offender in Corinth was clearly practicing sin, it follows that he was not genuinely born again even under an OSAS paradigm. Given your standard of proof that the Bible has to use the actual words, “Any person genuinely filled with the Holy Spirit can lose the Holy Spirit if said person sins enough to warrant God’s rejection,” in order for a counter proof to be valid, then Paul clearly didn’t say that the offender “had the Holy Spirit,” so on your terms, he could not have been saved. No matter how you slice and and not matter how you look at it, the offender was not saved.
Again, somebody who practices sin is not born again. The offender was practicing sin. Therefore, the offender was not born again. That’s a logically deductive argument which means that the conclusion necessarily follows if the premises are true. The premises are true, therefore the conclusion necessarily follows. How’s that for “airtight” logic, Naz?
One more note, Paulie. If you were speaking face-to-face with somebody you disagreed with, and in the process of the debate, both of you became emotionally elevated, and you began waiving your arm to make a point and accidentally hit your opponent? Wouldn’t you apologize no matter how much you disagreed with the other guy? No matter how wrong he seemed to be and no matter how angry you were, wouldn’t you, as a Christian, immediately apologize and tell him that you didn’t intend to hit him? How is it that you can tell baldfaced lie after baldfaced lie and not even apologize? How can you accuse me of “avoiding” an argument when I clearly and demonstrably didn’t avoid it? How can you accuse me of saying that I “now” deny the HS jumping in and out of people when it is clear that I denied that over a year ago? You have no decency, and you have no shame.
LikeLike
April 15, 2021 at 2:14 pm
scalia ………… lol, it’s you that has “no decency” and “no shame” not me.
i’ll just try a quick one as my last 2 comments didn’t post.
Jesus’ own words prove our position correct. if He says “depart from Me I never knew you” that can only be that person was never indwelt by the Holy Spirit. because if they were He wouldve known them.
LikeLike
April 15, 2021 at 2:48 pm
as my comment keeps failing to post i’ll do another quick one then try again for the umpteenth time.
LOL ………. wrong again scalia you are the liar —- you intentionally take me out of context. your sides position is as i said correctly is — “the HS jumping in and out of people.” it’s irrelevant that you have a different scenario and didn’t state it clearly as such immediately which lead to my misunderstanding you. the fault is yours not mine but once you clearly made your position clear —- my counter-point is still accurate. there’s none/zip/zero/nada biblical evidence showing the Holy Spirit leaves a believer once He indwells them. so you continue to play the lying retard game and avoiding the numerous errors your theology presents.
LikeLike
April 15, 2021 at 11:17 pm
The Prevaricator writes,
There is no doubt that if you had evidence of my lying, you would produce it. I haven’t lied about a single thing here, but I will say this. If you can show from my posts that I took you out of context, unlike you, I will immediately apologize. I would never “deliberately” misconstrue a person’s argument. That said, I have and will demonstrate clearly that you have repeatedly lied on these boards, and that has NOTHING to do with taking you out of context. Your own mouth condemns you.
Throughout this thread, you brought up the Holy Ghost jumping in and out of people as something that I assert. In Post 250, you wrote:
Here, as earlier in the thread, you accused me of two things: Avoiding the subject in the previous discussion (over a year ago) and avoiding it here. I replied by proving otherwise. Back in Post 35, I quoted Naz who said:
And I replied thusly:
Since nobody has argued that on these boards, this is a clear straw man
Here, I clearly denied that the anybody argued that the Holy Ghost jumps in and out of people.
With respect to the debate over a year ago, I wrote in Post 151:
Show me a legitimate quotation from any credible non-OSAS theologian who argues that the Holy Spirit jumps “in and out of” a believer. You’ll be looking for a long time because it doesn’t exist.
I also said in Post 151:
When a person develops a rebellious spirit, s/he will resist, grieve and finally quench the Holy Spirit. Being no longer “of us,” s/he’ll simply leave.
Thus, it’s not that God’s Spirit will leave every time a person sins. God will deal long with a person as He dealt long with Israel until He finally removed them from Canaan.
In Post 153, I wrote:
Nobody says that the Holy Spirit jumps in and out of a believer. The fact that you think that proves OSAS demonstrates your total ignorance of the debate.
Poster replied: “The Holy Spirit doesn’t jump in and out of us over and over till we die in a state of grace.” And I replied in Post 155:
The key words are “over and over.” No theologian says that the Holy Spirit jumps in and out of a believer over and over. That is what I’m replying to. If you’re familiar with the debate, we wouldn’t having this silly side discussion.
You then interpreted my denial of the Holy Ghost’s jumping in and out of people as an endorsement of OSAS (see Post 159), which prompted this reply in Post 160:
It proves nothing of the kind. At best, it proves inartful wording on my part. Under no rational standard can my words be construed to advocate OSAS. First, I have clearly stated that I do not believe OSAS. Second, I have clearly argued against its concepts. Third, I was replying to your remark that the Spirit doesn’t jump out of believers “over and over.” I clarified that was my intent, and I averred from a post previous to 153 that a believer can “quench” the Spirit.
You clearly understood that I denied the “jumping in and out” because you then took my denial as an endorsement of OSAS (Post 159) which I clearly denied in Post 160. There could be nothing “obscure” about my denial because, pursuant to your own words, you understood me to be denying it.
In Post 254 (here), you wrote:
NOW I ADMIT?? Over a year ago, as quoted above, I clearly stated my denial of this “jumping in and out” and your replies prove that you understood that. Back in Post 35, I again stated that nobody was arguing that, and you have the gall to state that I am “NOW” admitting it? If I were Perry Mason and was tasked to defend you in court, I would throw up my hands in despair over such a hopeless case. The best that can be said of you is that you have a very poor memory and had simply forgotten what was said in the previous debate. But that doesn’t work because when you were reminded what was said, instead of apologizing, you denied lying and insisted that you were right all along because my doctrinal position is both incoherent and wrong.
It is immaterial whether or not I’m correct on the point. I can freely affirm that I’m mistaken for the sake of argument. Let’s say that I’m completely wrong about resisting, grieving and quenching the Holy Ghost. That has NOTHING to do with the fact that you lied about my ignoring and avoiding the subject. Just because a person is wrong does not mean that he ignored or avoided the subject. If you had the slightest shred of Christian integrity, you would have said something like, “Sincere apologies offered. I got so caught up in the debate, that I went too far with my accusations.” But no, you couldn’t even squeeze that out. You can’t even say that you would apologize for accidentally hitting a guy that you’re debating!
Even when shown your own words and the words of others which clearly and unmistakably prove your dishonesty, you go into attack mode. There is no rational explanation for this insanity. You’ve got some very deep-rooted psychological problems, Paul. You need professional help — seriously. And you also need spiritual help. Your lying has become pathological, and your credibility is completely shot (it’s been shot for over a year now). I really hope you can see it before it’s too late.
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 1:04 am
lol ………… since im having problems posting i’ll splitting it up
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 1:05 am
scalia ……….. still lmao because yes the problem is yours not ours. and you add extra problems to your sides with your delusional additions re “works” and the Holy Spirit staying indwelt in a believer for an unspecified time before He finally leaves. to funny…….
LOL ………. and again you play the lying retard game. we have biblical evidence by 2 apostles of the Holy Spirit not leaving a willful sinner & those leaving us “were not part of us.” meaning Christians that were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. re enforced further by Jesus’ own words — “I never knew you.” so here’s another question you won’t answer —– how can Jesus say He never knew someone if the Holy Spirit was indwelling them for some time ?
it’s impossible which proves us right again —- if indwelt by the Holy Spirit you are OS. and since the Holy Spirit won’t abandon you you are AS. easy breezy unless you are a works righteousness heretic like yourself that has “no decency” or “no shame.”
LOL ……….. see the truth is on our side so we can explain —- you can’t explain because you don’t have the truth. so i can agree with you — believing in Jesus is a “work” but that’s irrelevant because “not by works” means any “works” we do don’t/can’t save us because “not by works” really means you can’t earn your salvation.
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 1:21 am
LOL ……….. see the truth is on our side so we can explain —- you can’t explain because you don’t have the truth. so i can agree with you — believing in Jesus is a “work” but that’s irrelevant because “not by works” means any “works” we do don’t/can’t save us because “not by works” really means you can’t earn your salvation.
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 1:31 am
scalia ………….. lmao ——— funny my comment won’t post, i’ll try again later tonite and tomorrow.
LOL ………..yes you are wrong about that and everything else. and i already proved you were lying —- but just like your other errors you can’t see that. i’ll just add………… it’s impossible you proved i lied because you can not know my intentions.
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 8:41 am
So, Paulie, the Prevaricator, spun his wheels to upload a post that contains essentially nothing but a regurgitation of what’s been discussed ad infinitum. And since most of it has been refuted multiple times (including the “they went out from us because they were not of us” from the previous debate a year ago), we’ll just leave it there.
It seems that when the Prevaricator realizes that he’s firing blanks with one verse, he jumps to another. When that doesn’t work, he runs to another, then another, then another. His latest fad is…
Matthew 7
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
The Prevaricator then accuses me of not answering the following question: “[H]ow can Jesus say He never knew someone if the Holy Spirit was indwelling them for some time?” Really? When did I ever say that these people ever had the Holy Ghost? Jesus wasn’t addressing everybody who had ever professed Christianity falsely. He specifically addresses those who claimed to be believers but they lived in sin.
In fact, it sounds like He’s addressing OSAS “believers” who think that their sin bears no relevance to their standing with God. Given that the Prevaricator and Naz state that the incestuous fella in Corinth could be saved, that seems to fit them to a T. On the one hand, they insist that good works will characterize a believer’s life, and on the other hand, they say that you can routinely commit incest, be kicked out of the church for incest, refuse to repent, and still be saved. Thus, even if said person dies in rebellion, he’s still saved. That is a license to sin, root and branch. As I stated above, it commits them to the position that, “good works necessarily follow a genuine Christian’s life, but good works do not necessarily follow a genuine Christian’s life.” Given the repeated dishonesty we’ve seen here, we are witnessing living examples of this kind of “Christianity.” They can sin any way they please and shout on the hills of glory! The Lord’s warning in Matthew 7 is a sober reminder that such thinking is delusional.
Now, Paulie writes,
One cannot prove another’s lying without citation. I’ve provided “chapter and verse,” while Paulie waives his hands. All he’s got to do is quote one statement of mine that is both false and given with the full knowledge that it was false. And of course that’s something he’s never “proved” because he’s never done that.
Ah, but in your case, that was proved. My statements demonstrate that your accusations are false. I could not “now admit” that the Holy Ghost doesn’t jump in and out of people when there’s a thread over a year old wherein I stated the same thing—with comments from you acknowledging that! I could not be “avoiding” or “ignoring” the point when the record PROVES just the opposite.
So, since there’s NO QUESTION that you’ve uttered false statements, the only question is whether you uttered them deliberately and with the full knowledge that they were false. And the record clearly confirms that. We have few logical options:
1) Paul is psychotic and is thus totally disconnected from reality.
2) Paul has extremely poor memory so that he cannot recall past statements.
3) Paul has split personalities so that a statement by one personality is not a statement by the other personality.
4) Paul is a baldfaced liar.
Option 2 is off the table because even if Paul has a bad memory, I reminded him of both my and his statements multiple times. Once reminded, if he were a genuine Christian, he would have apologized. Instead of doing that, he called me delusional.
Option 3 is also off the table because Paul would have denied ever making the statements attributed to him if another personality had written them.
Option 1 is possible, but highly improbable. To be certain, Paul definitely has a personality problem, and he needs help (repeated child-like behavior and obsessed with winning at the expense of propriety), but that’s a far cry from full-blown psychosis.
Consequently, Option 4 is the only alternative. Paul has made false statements, and he knew they were false when he made them. Even if he didn’t know that they were false when they were typed, he was made aware that they were false in subsequent posts and rather than apologize, he defended them. Thus, his lying is proved.
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 10:37 am
scalia ………. lmao —- you didn’t prove i lied only that i misunderstood you. and again — the misunderstanding is your fault because of your piss poor explaining of your theory. if you wouldve clearly stated your beliefs right from the start that wouldn’t have happened and this discussion wouldve been over in a couple back and forths.
LOL ………. you continued insisting i lied is what you delusional people always do when you can’t refute the arguments against your silliness. it’s a diversion that allows you to remain in your delusion. but as all can see your argument is crumbling as you are now admitting to what any sane person can see —- you got things wrong. again as you always do you never say — yes Paul you are correct about quenching of the HS
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 10:48 am
No you didn’t “misunderstand” me, for by you affirm that I denied that the Holy Ghost jumped in and out of a person. Now, whether or not I’m wrong in that regard is again irrelevant. The point is I DID NOT IGNORE OR AVOID THE QUESTION as you alleged. You thus lied about it then and you’re lying about it now.
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 10:50 am
scalia……….. lmao —– you poor lost soul. you continue to ignore ALL of the evidence proving me correct and you wrong.
LOL …………… Jesus’ own words about “I never knew you” proves your more delusional take on the Holy Spirit leaving an indwelt believer is not me spinning my wheels —– it’s me blowing your argument right out of the water or “boxes you in.”
LOL …………….that’s because if the Holy Spirit ever indwelt you Jesus did know you.
LOL ………… as per your false claims i lied. just 1 of the examples which are very similar. i did not lie by stating you said — the HS jumping in/out of a believer, because that is actually what you meant. the only difference is in your idiotic scenario it just happens once and in the delusional rcc scenario it happens over and over as they lose “sanctifying grace” then repent get it back, sin, repent, get it back, etc…………
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 10:50 am
No, you didn’t “misunderstand” me, for by your own words you affirmed that I denied that the Holy Ghost jumped in and out of a person. Now, whether or not I’m wrong in that regard with respect to doctrine is again irrelevant. The point is I DID NOT IGNORE OR AVOID THE QUESTION as you alleged. You thus lied about it then and you’re lying about it now.
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 11:56 am
scalia…………. lmao ——— that’s exactly what happened. and it proves it’s you that lacks knowledge about this topic. the argument from your side always was —- you get “sanctifying grace” then you sin and lose “sanctifying grace” then you repent and get back “sanctifying grace.” repeat over and over which means the HS jumps in/out of a believer over and over. your moronic change to the argument was that only happens once.
LOL ………. so of course i misunderstood because i mistakenly believed you couldnt be that dumb. and once you finally clarified your silliness turns out you are that dumb. but once you clarified your position was different from the original argument ……….. i only pointed out the errors your change adds and the real meaning of the HS leaving — even if just once as you clarified finally that means you are still calling God a liar because the HS leaving is abandoning the believer and God said He would not abandon us.
LOL ……….. wrong again —- you did not address the point of my question and thereby did ignore it ………… so again that’s not me lying. and not sure if you saw it/it posted but i explained how people like you do ignore my questions.
briefly ……… just ignore them. do not address the main point. deny w/o evidence quench means what i say according to the context or not immediately even state you may be wrong. just blab on and on about some bs that some “works” save you but those aren’t the works in “not by works.”
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 12:09 pm
The Prevaricator writes,
Only I did address the point of the question over a year ago. The fact that you disagreed with my answer does not mean that I ignored it or avoided it. There is a world of difference between whether you agree with the response and whether the response ignored the question.
You alleged that our position is that the Holy Ghost jumps in and out of people, and I repeatedly replied that that is not our position. We deny that God’s Spirit leaves every time a person stumbles or commits an infraction. And we elaborate by demonstrating that God’s promises are consistently conditional throughout the New Testament and by examples of genuine Christians being lost—that the Bible speaks of resisting the Holy Ghost, grieving the Holy Ghost, and quenching the Holy Ghost. Thus, the fact that the Spirit can be quenched and that true Christians can be lost demonstrates that God can and will leave under certain conditions.
Now, we don’t need another hysterical salvo from you pointing out why I’m wrong in all of that because that’s beside the point. The point is there is no honest way to affirm that I ignored or avoided the point. Disagreement is your prerogative; lying about my ignoring and avoiding the question is not.
You lied, and you know you lied. So, in a vain attempt to save your face, you try to reduce it to a “misunderstanding” and the alleged “fact” that I ignored the “point” you were trying to make. The record above proves that I directly addressed the point. You just disagree with the answer.
You really are pathetic.
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 2:01 pm
scalia ……….. im still lmao because it’s you that’s pathetic. your reprobate mind has fabricated a lie that i did not commit.
LOL …………….. wrong again —– because 1 year a go you did not make your position clear so i misunderstood you for a period of time. that’s because the original argument im very familiar with did not hold your position.
LOL …………….. but again you expose your problem —- eventually you did explain your moronic theory about the HS just leaves once after an unspecified time/number of sins. but that’s just 1 question oh delusional one —- so that leaves ALL of the other questions that you did not answer for the exact reasons i gave. hilariously you even seemed to admit in one of your many irrelevant comments that could be just a difference of opinion with you saying you did answer and me disagreeing you did —- which is not a lie.
LOL ……………… and as i correctly stated you are doing exactly what the delusional nut jobs usually do —- you can’t prove the HS doesn’t leave an indwelt believer, won’t admit it because that destroys your argument/exposes your delusion ……. so you start a strawman argument so you can believe you won.
LikeLike
April 16, 2021 at 2:20 pm
Paulie writes:
And you’re lying through your teeth again, because I explained all of that LAST YEAR. You would think that you’d go back and re-read the exchange to refresh your memory instead of pulling things ad hoc out of your backside to give yourself cover. I explained my reasoning LAST YEAR. Moreover, my quotations above prove that, so you’ve got nowhere to hide.
Last year, you knew that I denied the “jumping in and out” doctrine and I stated that again here. You then turned around and said that I ‘NOW ADMIT” what you knew I asserted the year previous. Your “now admit” comment demonstrates that you understood my argument back then because you made it in response to the post wherein I QUOTED FROM LAST YEAR’S DEBATE!! Why was what I quoted from last year clear to you now and it wasn’t clear to you a year ago? Don’t bother trying to make something up, because your words last year prove that you understood me then.
You wrote in Post 152:
So you are saying the Holy Spirit does not jump in and out of a believer ? That proves my case for OSAS.
You wrote in Post 154:
Now since by your own admission the Holy Spirit doesn’t leave the believer once He dwells in said believer how am I wrong ?
I replied in Post 158 by quoting my previous posts:
Post 151:
Anybody who leaves the church is no longer “of us.” When a person develops a rebellious spirit, s/he will resist, grieve and finally quench the Holy Spirit. Being no longer “of us,” s/he’ll simply leave.
Post 155:
The key words are “over and over.” No theologian says that the Holy Spirit jumps in and out of a believer over and over. That is what I’m replying to. If you’re familiar with the debate, we wouldn’t having this silly side discussion.
What part of “quench” and “over and over” don’t you understand? You clearly aren’t even aware what the counterargument is, and even when you’re told, you pretend to believe otherwise.
So, I clearly explained what I meant, and it is again immaterial that you disagree with my arguments. The point is that I clearly did not ignore the question, I clearly answered it from our perspective, and I clearly quoted those words in my post under this thread to which you replied that I ‘NOW ADMIT” that the HS doesn’t jump in and out of a believer. You’re lying six ways from Sunday.
LikeLike
April 17, 2021 at 3:57 pm
scalia …………. lmao —– again you prove what a delusional fool you are.
LOL ………. talking past each other/me misunderstanding you/you misunderstanding me, is not lying. see for the same reason you couldn’t see im right about “quenching” and other stuff you can’t see the evidence im right about me not lying —– you are blind to anything that proves you wrong.
LOL ……….. so here’s what happened……. jumps in/out is used to mock those that hold to this belief.
A. you never clearly sated your position up front. i had to drag it out of you and you still haven’t clearly defined some of it. i knew you were off the usual arguments but since you weren’t clear it was a long time before we were on the same page i think ????
B. therefore, i believed you also held to the main argument of the vast majority of the faith+works crowd.
C. so when you indicated the HS can leave (jumps out) of an indwelt believer. i took that to mean you held to the rcc teaching the HS indwells a person (jumps in) and when you sin the HS leaves (jumps out), stands outside and keeps knocking on the door until you repent. if the person repents the HS indwells the person (jumps). repeat …….. so as i said even though they don’t use the words they mean the HS jumps in/out of people.
D. now instead of seeing we have a misunderstanding, anybody with a basic understanding of this discussion should’ve seen, and clarifying so we can move on you go bananas because i misunderstand you. hilariously calling me names and accusing me of being dishonest etc…… when the problem is due to you not clearly stating your idiotic take on this topic up front.
E. so once i finally, with Naz’s help, figure out your position —– i explain your problem and even though YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THE HS jumps in/out of a believer that is still what your position means because how can the Holy Spirit indwell a person willfully committing mortal sin based on your scenario ? He can’t —- it only works with ours. He doesn’t leave the believer once He indwells them because He can’t and since Jesus is our righteousness our sins our covered with His blood so He is not offended.
LOL ……….. that’s exactly what your side professes — NOT YOU, YOUR SIDE. their position is as i clearly stated and posted the evidence to support it. “sanctifying grace” is removed over and over as a person sins/repents according to the roman catholic church (rcc). and based on your silliness so far fyi —- your side is based on arguments of the rcc. so do they say “the HS jumps in/out of a believer” and that keeps going on over and over until that person dies with or without being indwelt by the HS.
LOL …………. and here’s another question you won’t answer —– TR, Naz and myself are stating text book arguments our side has been giving for centuries now. ive never heard your position in all of my 60yrs. so —- where did you get your different ideas about “works” and the HS staying in a sinner willfully sinning but eventually leaves them ? because as i said the rcc argument is dumb but that is even dumber —- did you come up with this on your own OR some cre cre pastor taught you ?
LikeLike
April 17, 2021 at 8:55 pm
No, Paulie. Actually, you’ve long ago proven to be the delusional one here. You’re just a joke to probably everybody who frequents these boards, except for you, of course. You are your biggest fan. I think that Naz just tolerates you because you happen to be ideologically compatible, excepting perhaps free will. Imagine the temerity to think that a person has free will to choose salvation!
Anyway, the first rule of holes is when you find yourself in one, you quit digging. But every time you post, you just dig yourself deeper into the hole of your own making. I guess at this stage, you’re obligated to keep posting because you’ve been shown to be the liar that you’ve denied all this time. So you feel that you’ve somehow got to make up some more lies to cover for your previous ones. It’s not working, Paulie, because your own words condemn you.
Your desperate attempt to chalk this up as a misunderstanding is the real “LOL” moment because your statements prove otherwise.
That may be what you thought last year, but as I’ve already shown, I repeatedly disabused you of that notion. I made it clear beyond ambiguity that I denied this in-and-out jumping, and your replies prove that you understood that.
Now, nothing changed from then to now because my present posts reminding you of last year’s debate contained the same words I used last year. So, there was no clarification whatsoever. You cannot, on the one hand, accuse me of being ambiguous a year ago, and on the other hand say that I cleared matters up here, because my “clearing up” merely quoted what I said last year! And when you jumped up and said that I ‘NOW ADMIT,” that the HG doesn’t jump in and out of a person, you were lying through your teeth because your words last year clearly state otherwise. Is your short-term memory that bad?
In last year’s Post 152, you wrote:
So you are saying the Holy Spirit does not jump in and out of a believer ? That proves my case for OSAS.
And your diversionary tactic over “misunderstanding” is blatantly fatuous because you accused me of “ignoring” and “avoiding” the subject. It is clear that whatever the merit of my argument, I DID NOT AVOID IT. You thus lied on two points: 1) That I avoided the subject, and 2) That I was NOW admitting that the HG doesn’t jump repeatedly. I cannot “NOW” admit something when I “admitted” the same thing over a year ago.
Now, if your memory is really that bad, you would have immediately apologized, no matter how angry or upset you were at me, because I clearly didn’t “avoid” your argument or your point.
And instead of having the integrity to own up to your obvious dishonesty, you turn around and try to accuse me of the same. But like I said, I can bring chapter and verse. You keep waiving your hands. So, according to your standard, you have to not only show where I’ve uttered a falsehood, you have to show that I uttered it knowing that it was false. I’ve shown your prevarications here. There’s no way you could have “misunderstood” after I quoted from last year’s debate because I said nothing new here except to point to an earlier post where I said the same thing I said last year.
And, since you’re on record as saying that an OSAS “believer” can routinely commit incest, refuse to repent over it, get kicked out of the church because of it, can die without ever coming back to church, and still be saved, what’s a few bald-faced lies in comparison?
LikeLike
April 18, 2021 at 2:53 pm
scalia ……………. lmao again you prove you are out to lunch.
you: “And, since you’re on record as saying that an OSAS “believer” can routinely commit incest, refuse to repent over it, get kicked out of the church because of it, can die without ever coming back to church, and still be saved, what’s a few bald-faced lies in comparison?”
me: im guessing that’s his step mother, so incest does not apply.
me: lmao ——– you are using man’s logic to try and discredit our sound biblical teaching. yes that’s no problem for osas because God knew s/he would do that before indwelling them. therefore, if God’s okay with saving that person im okay with that. so that begs the question —– why would you disagree with God ?
LOL ……… but again you miss your error oh delusional one —– why would a born again believer that Naz, TR and myself are talking about do that ? they most likely would not. therefore, i’d question if the person you are describing has a true/saving faith at all ……. based on what you’ve stated about them they most likely have a false/dead faith and therefore are not saved —– just like you.
LOL …………… more bs from you that doesn’t disprove the evidence i posted proving we had a misunderstanding not that i lied. but you prove your error by using the same silly logic i lied by denying osas with your contrived example that ignores the evidence that proves you wrong.
LikeLike
April 18, 2021 at 2:55 pm
LOL ………… so again why did the apostle Paul say that person will be saved?
LikeLike
April 18, 2021 at 3:04 pm
The Prevaricator said,
Incest: In a number of jurisdictions, incest statutes extend to relationships among individuals related by affinity. Such statutes proscribe sexual relations between stepfathers and stepdaughters, stepmothers and stepsons, or brothers-and sisters-in-law, and such relations are punishable as incest.
I guess you’re too old to sue your teachers for malpractice, but you should perhaps look up words before you make a fool of yourself.
Nonetheless, that’s beside the point, and you know it. Paulie speak with forked tongue. Paulie says that works accompany genuine faith, but you can commit incest routinely, refuse to repent, get kicked out of your church for it, die in the act of committing incest, and still go to heaven.
LICENSE TO SIN INDEED!
LikeLike
April 19, 2021 at 12:28 pm
scalia ………… again you show your error by excluding anything that proves you wrong oh delusional one.
LOL ………… and the correct answer is —— the Holy Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to tell that story that way to prove osas.
LOL …………. even if your definition of incest does include step mother. that fact that she is his step mother does not mean incest is applicable. if the father remarried later in life when the son was an adult and the son/step mother did not have that relationship even with your flawed definition you are an idiot for bringing it up.
LOL ………….. again you show your ignorance ……… not a “LICENSE TO SIN” at all because he will be punished severely in the flesh for his sin. but God will not break His part of the everlasting covenant He entered in with full knowledge of the sin he would commit before he died. you are just as bad of a sinner as he was.
LOL ………… hilariously you have a problem with God when He doesn’t do what you want Him to do. we all know it’s His party and He can invite who He wants to. you remind me of the brother that wouldn’t join the father’s party for the prodigal son. but we know why in your case because “you left us so you aren’t one of us.”
LOL ………… you really need to study the correct meaning of justification and sanctification —- because besides your other error you seem to agree with the erroneous rcc theology on this topic also.
LikeLike
April 19, 2021 at 1:00 pm
And the one who pretends that I “exclude anything that proves” me wrong talks right past my rebuttal to that claim. Waiving your hands and talking past an argument isn’t an answer, but we’ve come to expect that from you.
Also, it isn’t “my” definition of incest; it’s the legal definition thereof. And the fact that you’re lamely trying to fight over the plain definition of the term demonstrates you’re desperation in trying to divert attention from the point—the point being that you can routinely sin and still be saved.
And the one who gets twisted over my citation of the legal definition of incest suddenly doesn’t know what “license to sin” is. People know that there are risks inherent in alcohol, drugs, and sexual immorality. They take their chances anyway because they enjoy what they’re doing. “License to sin,” has no bearing on earthly consequences. It has always referred to the permission to sin. In salvific terms, sin is irrelevant according to the OSAS “teaching” we’ve seen here. You can sin to your heart’s content and still go to heaven. That’s precisely what license is…
License: formal permission for a government or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession.
Thus, “license to sin” means the divine permission to sin with respect to one’s salvation. In other words, “Since you are eternally secure, no sin will prevent you from being saved. You may get cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, die very young, or lose your ‘fun packet’ at the judgment, but you’ll be saved nonetheless.” And if telling a habitual rapist, adulterer, pedophile and incestuous person that they are saved no matter what they do isn’t a license to sin, THEN NOTHING IS.
Moreover, it is logically incoherent to say that the presence of God’s seed in an individual means that good works will necessarily manifest themselves in a born again person’s life, but good works won’t necessarily manifest themselves in a born again person’s life. Either a person can or cannot practice sin if he or she has been born again. The Bible says the latter, Paulie says the former.
LikeLike
April 19, 2021 at 5:06 pm
“Of course I can and have done so on numerous occasions.”
I’m pretty certainly you’ve never provided ANY credible evidence against my assessment of heaven as described in the Bible. You seem to be more interested in evading my questions rather than answering them.
But that in itself is an answer.
LikeLike
April 19, 2021 at 5:26 pm
“this format is not the best —- but where did you state your position clearly on this topic as i asked of you ? all you’ve done is play the lying retard game beating your silly faith alone is false/God can condemn those He called, that accepted His free gift, claimed.”
Wow, you really know how to set a good example for Christians. Don’t you realize that it’s people like you who are causing people to leave Christianity in droves? Why don’t you just tone it down a bit and engage in some actual conversation, rather than petty sniping and ad hominem fallacies? Surely you realize that if your arguments have merit, they will stand on their own and won’t need to be delivered so nastily. Do you really think you’ll convince anyone with your attitude?
The problem is you ASSUMED I’m a faith and works guy, although I never said as such. I’ve merely pointed out what the Bible says. I don’t base ANY of my beliefs on faith, so your accusations about what I believe make no sense.
“no you have proven you idea of engagement is as i stated —– because we presented our evidence, proved yours false, proved your counter points false and shown you the errors your side makes. and you keep insisting we are the delusional ones.”
I suspect you must be thinking that your back-and-forth with Scalia counted as arguments with me. I don’t read most of your exchanges with him so I haven’t seen any arguments against what I’ve presented.
This is what I originally posted and which I would appreciate a (civil) response to if you have a reasonable answer:
This is the part of theology that I just don’t understand. If God is all knowing and all powerful, as the Bible says, then we have to acknowledge that he could have created any of an infinite variety of universes he could imagine with his infinite mind. And he had to have known before he even created this universe that if he chose to create this specific universe that sin would result, right? All that HAS to be true by definition if God is all knowing and all powerful.
Thus it has to mean this is the universe God WANTED to exist. Sin can’t be an unfortunate consequence of free will (even if we ignore all the biblical evidence that God determines everything and thus free will is only an illusion), because God could have chosen to create one of the infinite universes where Lucifer didn’t rebel and Adam and Eve didn’t disobey…universes that MUST be possible to exist if choice actually exists.
So the only rational conclusion I see is that God WANTED sin to exist, he WANTED humanity to fall, he WANTED the world to become wicked, he WANTED to drown the world in a flood, and he WANTS billions of people to end up burning in hell. It means he is the one entirely responsible for the existence of sin in our universe, and the cause of every atrocity. Right?
And yet God blames humanity for becoming sinners and requires us to accept his forgiveness in order to be saved…even though HE chose to create the world where things turn out they way they do. We only do (only CAN do) what he created us to do. So I don’t see the justification there for saying we don’t deserve forgiveness…or that there’s even anything to forgive.
LikeLike
April 19, 2021 at 6:04 pm
“If we can lose eternal life, then eternal life is not eternal but temporary life and God is a liar.”
But isn’t that a distinct possibility? As I’ve pointed out before, based on the most straightforward interpretation of the biblical evidence it seems pretty clear that God is both capable and willing to lie, albeit through others:
• 1 Kings 22:23 So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours.
• 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
• Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet.
I realize there are passages that say God tells the truth, so how does one reconcile apparent contradictions? Well, a good God would never lie, right? But an evil God would have no problem lying. So if the Bible contains lies, that’s more indicative of an evil God, not a good one, don’t you think?
Well, either that or the people who wrote the Bible made mistakes, distorted meaning, etc. Considering everything about Jesus was mostly written decades after he died, and many of the stories were based on oral tradition, which were then translated and copied multiple times, and that the earliest surviving complete copies of the Bible are from hundreds of years after that…one would expect the Bible to contain contradictions, misinterpretations, forgeries, mistakes, etc., right?
Would a good God allow his words to be distorted and misinterpreted so much over time and translation that arguments over its meaning like those between Paul and Scalia would even be possible?
These are the kinds of questions it truly surprises me Christians don’t ask and find seriously problematic.
LikeLike
April 20, 2021 at 11:09 am
scalia ……….. still lmao. and again you prove how delusional your are by trying to prove you are right to use incest when the evidence i gave showed it’s not the most applicable even if the definition you are using is the correct one — that’s because no evidence they had that relationship when he was a child.
LOL ………. surely you are not that delusional to disagree if he didn’t know her before he became an adult/she didn’t raise him incest would still apply ?
LOL ………. again with the silliness —– not your definition as in only yours/one you made up. good thing we straightened that out our you’d accuse me of falsely lying again. the point is the vast majority of ALL the people ive meet use incest to mean with a close blood relative. and hilariously you add incest to his sins (already adultery & “uncovering his father’s nakedness”) to make it creepier. what’s so funny is that straightens my case not weakens it even if it was incest. yet i did agree with your definition of incest but correctly defined it
and you still “Need to be right” to funny.
LOL ………. yes you exclude what proves you wrong —- even as this argument shows —- that person proves osas and my evidence shows incest is not applicable because we lack info. and it’s not a 1 off verse —- it also dovetails with our other numerous verses about God not abandoning us once we are saved “OS.”
LOL …….. that’s right and you twist license to sin to only fit your theology. again —– to me and those i know it means “get away with it.” you are not getting away with sinning in that example. if being turned over to satan and having your flesh destroyed is getting away with it in your mind you are not just delusional but stupid.
LOL …….. see because you have a reprobate mind you twist and pervert everything to fit your belief. so “not by works” doesn’t mean what it clearly means, the HS can indwell you knowing what’ll you do then leave (only once in your theory, in/out over and over in others), God will not abandon you but He’ll let you exit a binding forever covenant you willing entered into, etc………..
see oh delusional one my father wouldn’t abandon me, he’d punish me, stop giving me money, etc………. but never ever stop being my father and he’s a failed human being NOT God.
LikeLike
April 20, 2021 at 11:22 am
derekmathais ………. there’s nothing wrong with the bible there’s something wrong with people like you and scalia.
LOL …….. but God did it on purpose —- it’s what i call the “Babel effect.” so you and scalia hear but you don’t understand and His children hear and do understand. the vast majority of things people like TR, Naz and myself disagree on are imo nothing burgers. even up to and including the Divinity of Jesus.
LOL …….. i actually thought you were the delusional and dumb one not scalia you i give you a hint —– what does the bible warn the false religion of Rev will be like ? so does it help God’s children/His plan for His children to be ALL in agreement OR be like we are now —- ALL in agreement on the major issues.
you see those people that don’t understand “faith alone” have to be delusional because we tell them it’s not a false/dead faith OR faith alone but not faith only. which means people like scalia and you are delusional because the only difference is we correctly state the works/fruit present does not and can not save you as the bible clearly teaches.
LikeLike
April 20, 2021 at 12:42 pm
@Paulie,
The word means what it means. Your “gotcha,” is therefore nothing but more of your ignorance speaking. If the man were an adult, and if the man were not living in the same house, and if the man’s father married late in life, etc., etc., is not “evidence.” It’s merely a scenario whereby one might not call the relationship “incest,” but that is nowhere near conclusive, especially after adding all the “ifs.”
And that is beside the point anyway. You’ve taken two positions:
1) A born again Christian may commit incest routinely, refuse to repent over it, get kicked out of his church because of it, die in the act of committing incest, and still go to heaven.
2) A born again Christian will have good works evidencing his or her faith. Good works do not save, but they necessarily follow a saved person’s faith.
It is thus easy to see that 1 and 2 are diametrically opposed to one another, especially considering 1 John 3:9,
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
Option 1 is thus impossible if the Bible is true. The very best an OSAS advocate could say is that such a person’s confession of faith was inauthentic. Under no rational standard can said person be said to be “born of God.”
Paulie, you know this to be the case, but because you walked into it due to your repeated citing of this man as an example of OSAS, you’ll keep defending yourself (not the Bible, mind you) in a vain attempt to save your face. You’ve been forced to argue that a person who practices sin is really born again. A person who never comes back to God is really born again. A person who dies in the act of committing incest is really born again. And we can of course add any sin in the book. If Adolf Hitler sincerely said the sinner’s prayer when he was 8-years-old, you’ll walk hand-in-hand with him through the pearly gates, right?
Thus, what you are saying is license root and branch. As far as salvation is concerned, and that’s what I’m specifically talking about, you DO get away with sinning. As far as the destiny of a person’s soul is concerned, you can get away with everything and be saved.
As Martin Luther said:
God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.
[…]
No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.
So, Paulie and Luther say that you can MURDER THOUSANDS OF TIMES EACH DAY, and still be saved. Well! At least the cover has been taken off the phony lip-service Paulie gave to holiness, and he’s been shown to be a moral monster.
Thankfully, the Bible says otherwise. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit and a genuinely born again Christian CANNOT practice sin.
LikeLike
April 21, 2021 at 1:43 pm
scalia ………….. still lmao because you aren’t thinking just like your buddy derekmatthais (dm). see this is why ilmao you both ignore the evidence that proves you wrong.
LOL ………. and because this is part of the bigger error you both are making i’ll discuss it here. dm implies if only God was clearer he’d believe and ALL Christians would agree. this goes hand in hand with your position “believing” is a “work” as in with out God’s gift you can choose on your own to believe. that’s hilarious as you both proved because TR, Naz and myself clearly proved our correct meaning of “faith alone” is biblically correct and you both reject it. dm to prove God is false and you to prove your works righteousness heresy is true.
LOL ………. yes he can but you err greatly by misrepresenting the reason —– the reason is because God says so. God clearly says that person committing “incest” willfully will be saved. see you can’t refute that with evidence so you set up a false argument saying God wouldn’t do that. but again you ignore your problem —- God says He will do just that.
LOL ……….. so to protect your delusion you even further twist the argument saying what if they are looting, raping, murdering innocent people are they still saved ? easy breezy — did God claim that person as His child ? if God says yes that person is saved. if God says no that person is not saved. and if you aren’t OS you are not AS.
LOL ………. but you are focusing on hypotheticals to defend your delusion —– God didn’t abandon king David after he committed adultery and murder to cover up his sin did He ? no. so w/o the Holy Spirit telling us that person you say that’s committing ALL of these evil acts is saved what is the most biblical answer —– that person has a false/dead faith and is not OS/indwelt by the Holy Spirit so like you and dm …………….. they’ll be in big trouble on great white throne judgment day.
LikeLike
April 21, 2021 at 2:07 pm
As we’re accustomed, Paul says a whole lot of nothing. There is no twisting of your position at all. As you grudgingly affirm here, you can commit murder thousands of times every day and still be saved. Paul thinks that if he was “once saved,” then he can cut the throats of thousands of babies every day and still be saved. Is that what the Bible teaches? Of course not.
Matthew 7
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
1 John 3
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
So, Paul, to help your logic-challenged mind (since you need to be reminded of your own words), you said here that good works necessarily follow a Christian’s life, and you also support the contention that you can commit murder thousands of times a day and still be saved. Those two positions don’t mix. One of them has to be incorrect. And this is precisely what the Bible says above.
So, Paul, was God lying when He said that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit? Was God lying when He said that nobody born of God practices sin? Yes or no?
And if God isn’t lying, then it is impossible for the man in 1 Cor. 6 to have been born again. So, please quit trying to change this into a once in a lifetime event. The Corinthian man ROUTINELY committed incest, and you refuse to condemn Luther’s statement that you can commit adultery and murder THOUSANDS OF TIMES IN A DAY and still be saved.
Why is God wrong and you right? Why did God mess up when He said that a person born of God cannot practice sin?
LikeLike
April 22, 2021 at 12:53 pm
scalia …………. lmao ……….. it’s you that says a whole lot of nothing. you haven’t even clearly put down your crazy theory in writing so we all can see how delusional it is.
LOL …………. again a post trying to explain away what the apostle Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit clearly teaches —- that man will be saved in the day of the Lord. so since you can’t prove that’s exactly what it means you try a man made argument it can’t mean that —- but it does mean that.
LOL …………. can a father have a bad child ? is that child still his even though they are bad ? yes to both questions.
LOL …………. you err greatly because your basic theology is false. because of what Jesus did God can save anybody —- even the most evilest person you can name. but we know universal salvation is not going to happen because God also tells us many will be condemned.
LOL …………. nothing wrong with TR, Naz and myself on the relationship between faith & works how that relates to “not by works.” we all hold to the same biblical and time tested beliefs. you on the other hand hold to a idiotic theory which im guessing is yours alone as in no one else believes that.
LOL …………. now what you should do is put your moronic theory about how faith, works and not by works relate in writing, you should be able to do that in 50 words or less, and w/o claiming that’s your theory ———- give it to your pastor or a trusted friend in your congregation and ask them to read it and let you know what they honestly think. and if they don’t think you are cre cre let them know about our conversation here —- i’d love to talk to them too.
LikeLike
April 22, 2021 at 1:25 pm
It’s obvious that you danced around the questions, Paulie. First, the Apostle Paul never said that the man in Corinth had the Holy Ghost. Second, he never said that he would be saved; he said that he “may” be saved, so based on your own arguments (that the Scriptures showing Christians can be lost never say that they actually had the Holy Ghost), this man was never saved by definition. So, your case for his salvation collapses immediately for want of evidence.
Moreover, since the text in question says that the man practiced sin, and since the Bible says that a person who is born of God cannot practice sin, then it follows that the man in question was not born of God.
So, in no case is your fatuous claim that this man was born again or OSAS is sustained by the Scriptures.
Again, since you appear to have missed it: Since Jesus said that a good tree cannot bear evil fruit, and since God said that nobody born of God can practice sin, and since you say that you can kill thousands of people and commit incest every day and be saved, why are you right and the Bible wrong?
It’s amazing that you’re siding more with Luther than you are the Bible. In fact, I find it almost unbelievable that in the face of clear, indisputable biblical passages that state that true Christians cannot practice sin, you nonetheless reject all of that (including your own statements above which pretend to profess holiness) to save your silly face in an argument.
In other words, you’re so desperate to avoid admitting error, you will slap God in the face and deny your own words above. Perhaps I was wrong. Maybe you are psychotic.
And what’s equally amazing is that you don’t have to take such ridiculous positions in order to defend OSAS. The smart unconditional eternal security theologians don’t hesitate to say that the Corinthian man was never truly saved, and they don’t hesitate to say that if holiness doesn’t characterize your life, you’re not a genuine believer. That was what you were arguing earlier in this thread (excepting the Corinthian man of course), but since your very weak arguments were falling apart, you desperately appealed to incest to save your hide and had to do a 180 against everything you argued previously. Truly pathetic.
And I’ve already addressed the “once a child, always a child” argument, which you never addressed.
LikeLike
April 22, 2021 at 1:48 pm
“Paulie says that works accompany genuine faith, but you can commit incest routinely, refuse to repent, get kicked out of your church for it, die in the act of committing incest, and still go to heaven.”
Isn’t God the one who required people to commit incest?
• Genesis 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living. [God required Eve’s children to commit incest with either her or each other.]
• Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.” [With only eight people left alive, God required people to again commit incest.]
• Genesis 19:36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. [God considered Lot a “just” and “righteous” man.]
LikeLike
April 22, 2021 at 2:26 pm
“derekmathais ………. there’s nothing wrong with the bible”
Really? If God can lie, then how can you possibly know if anything is wrong with the Bible?
And you don’t see anything wrong with God ordering babies torn from their mothers and hacked to death?
• Ezekiel 9:5-7 “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all—old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with corpses! Go!” So they went and began killing throughout the city.”
Or ordering little girls into what amounts to sexual slavery?
• Numbers 31:17-18 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Or being fine with beating a slave so badly she takes days to crawl back to her feet?
• Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
I’ve discovered literally hundreds of such passages in the Bible. Do you really see nothing wrong with God’s behavior in such examples? Or have you just not read the entire Bible?
“but God did it on purpose —- it’s what i call the “Babel effect.” so you and scalia hear but you don’t understand and His children hear and do understand.”
And you don’t see anything evil in God purposefully causing people to not understand, thus condemning their souls to eternal torture? Curiously, though, the same denominations that you claim are deluded say that you are deluded. I think you are both right. 😉
“what does the bible warn the false religion of Rev will be like ? so does it help God’s children/His plan for His children to be ALL in agreement OR be like we are now —- ALL in agreement on the major issues.”
But you’re NOT all in agreement on the major issues. Just between Evangelicals, Catholics, Calvinists and Lutherans alone, the cause and requirements for salvation differ substantially. And what could be more “major” to a Christian than salvation? But Jesus didn’t intend for you to all agree on only the “major” issues, but on EVERY issue. To repeat:
• John 17:20-23 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, THAT ALL OF THEM MAY BE ONE, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, THAT THEY MAY BE ONE AS WE ARE ONE—I in them and you in me—SO THAT THEY MAY BE BROUGHT TO COMPLETE UNITY. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
• 1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ALL OF YOU AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER in what you say and that THERE BE NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU, BUT THAT YOU BE PERFECTLY UNITED IN MIND AND THOUGHT.
Do you really think you and Scalia and the billions of other Christians in the world are in “complete unity”? Are there “no divisions among you,” and are you “perfectly united in mind and thought”? How would a good God allow such rancor and division among all those who clearly WANT to follow the right version of Christianity? Doesn’t something seem profoundly wrong to you?
“you see those people that don’t understand “faith alone” have to be delusional because we tell them it’s not a false/dead faith OR faith alone but not faith only. which means people like scalia and you are delusional because the only difference is we correctly state the works/fruit present does not and can not save you as the bible clearly teaches.”
Since I don’t believe there’s any credible evidence that salvation exists, I don’t see how I can be delusional about the whole “faith only” or “faith plus works” issue. I merely note that both you and Scalia have biblical justification for your beliefs, and you downplay, ignore or interpret differently the other’s biblical justification. You see it as something profoundly wrong with Scalia’s sect, he sees it as something profoundly wrong with your sect, and I see it as something profoundly wrong with the entire religion.
But you don’t seem interested in analyzing those problems to see if they’re valid. Case in point, I asked you for a reply about my “Infinite Worlds” problem of God being entirely responsible for all sin, but you’ve apparently ignored it. However, it WOULD explain why there’s so much division within Christianity.
LikeLike
April 22, 2021 at 2:56 pm
@derek
Do you have a website or blog?
LikeLike
April 22, 2021 at 3:12 pm
scalia …………… lmao ——- i danced around nothing. the context of the apostle Paul’s teaching is the man was indwelt by the Holy Spirt or else he would not be saved in the day of the Lord.
LOL ………… wrong again —- the bible is clear we are ALL sinners, which by definition means we sin. again you prove your error —– we are not holy/righteous in the eyes of God because of what we do. we are holy in the eyes of God because our sins have been covered by the blood of Jesus. you keep making errors because your belief is not built on petra.
LOL ………….. no you missed it —- we are ALL sinners. justification is a 1 time event and sanctification is an ongoing event. you ignore the biblical warning and believe your “works” can save you —- they can’t. and since you keep insisting they can you are biblically accursed.
LOL …………. there is nothing wrong with our biblically sound teaching. the man the apostle Paul says is saved is saved —- but that’s not the norm. but OS there is no biblical evidence saying the Holy Spirit leaves/abandons you which mean we are right and it’s not a contradiction for the apostle Paul to say that man is saved. that’s the evidence you dance around —- God can save him if He wants but as the apostle Paul warns that’s not a free pass as your flesh will be destroyed and —– “all things are not expedient.” it’s like counting on winning the lottery for your retirement —- possible but unlikely.
LOL …………. the problem is not ours —- the problem is yours because his teaching is crystal clear …………. that man is saved, therefore he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit therefore he has to be saved because God won’t abandon His children.
LOL …………. we aren’t siding with luther, luther is siding with the bible as we are. and im not very familiar with luther’s writings but he’s probably just doing what we do —- reacting to delusional nut jobs like you that are trying to use man’s logic to counter our sound biblical evidence.
LOL …………… after 30 yrs im still waiting for any evidence that proves a person that dies indwelt by the Holy Spirit is condemned or once indwelt by the Holy Spirit He will leave/abandon you. that’s because there isn’t any biblical evidence for that. but under the Old Covenant there is biblical evidence the “anointing” of the Holy Spirit is removed but that’s the OC not the NC and even Samson had his anointing restored before he died.
LikeLike
April 22, 2021 at 4:22 pm
And Paulie continues to dance. Since all he’s doing is repeating himself, there’s no point addressing it. I’ve replied at least a zillion times to everything he wrote.
Note, he still hasn’t addressed 1 John 3:9 and Matthew 7:18 — Nobody born of God can practice sin, and a good tree CANNOT bear evil fruit.
He knows that’s the death knell for his personal belief, so he pretends that it doesn’t exist. He clearly sides with Luther and affirms that you can commit murder thousands of times a day and be saved. Paul is thus a moral monster.
Since a person born of God cannot practice sin, and since the man in Corinth practiced sin, he was thus not born of God. That’s “airtight” logic. And until Paul can directly address it, he’s still waiving his hands.
@Naz
Do you go along with all of this, Naz? I know you’re reading along, but since you “resurrected,” you haven’t said a thing, and I’ve been waiting to settle this “license” thing with you.
So, since you at least give greater lip service to the biblical teaching that one born of God cannot practice sin and that a good tree cannot bear evil fruit, do you agree with Paul that you can commit adultery and murder thousands of times in a day and be saved?
LikeLike
April 22, 2021 at 5:50 pm
derekmathais ………… lmao —-you and scalia just keep proving how delusional you both are.
LOL ……… your other comment was retarded because anyone with even a tiny bit of biblical knowledge knows Jesus’ own words prove He uses language so those that don’t belong to Him will “hear but not understand.”
LOL ……… scalia is a perfect example why even people who profess they are “Christians” won’t agree —- he’s protecting his belief by denying what we all agree upon ……. nothing wrong with “faith alone.” the vast majority of those that disagree is because they believe, even though we explained they are wrong, we mean a false/dead faith alone.
LOL ………. and you keep proving your error —- God doesn’t lie. you like scalia ignore the evidence that we have that has disproved every single contradiction you new atheists/atheists/agnostics/anti Christians have brought forth. if you would’ve done your research with an open mind you wouldn’t post such idiotic things that you do —- like there is a contradiction on this issue OR God doesn’t use language so people like you and scalia will not understand.
LOL …………. the tares can’t understand …… if they could understand they wouldn’t be tares.
LikeLike
April 22, 2021 at 5:55 pm
dm ………. and please contact scalia as maybe he can explain his idiotic theory about this topic so you can tell him he’s nuts. because although you have both proven you are delusional —- you at least on this topic have been intellectual honest to your false position. poor lost scalia can’t see he is really arguing that God is a liar.
LikeLike
April 22, 2021 at 6:07 pm
And like the Energizer Bunny, Paul keeps dancing around 1 John 3:9 and Matthew 7:18.
Paul, can a person born of God practice sin?
Yes or no?
LikeLike
April 23, 2021 at 6:32 am
@derek
Do you have a website or blog?
Never mind. I found it.
LikeLike
April 23, 2021 at 10:23 am
scalia ………. lmao unlike you i don’t dance around an issue. the problem is you are delusional and can’t comprehend biblical truth.
LOL ………….. a person willfully committing “incest” dies and is condemned UNLESS they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. that’s your big error —- you believe incorrectly your works save you. you are saved because God chose you and although it’s not the norm He can save that person because He’s God.
LOL …………… so can a person that left a bible believing “church” be saved also ? hilariously here we also have an apostle speak on this topic —– if they left they weren’t saved/meaning indwelt by the Holy Spirit. because if they were they’d still be part of us. this is also re-enforced by how delusional these people are by arguing God is a liar/will abandon His children/can’t comprehend biblical truth —- like you and dm.
LOL ………….. even on the other end —- doing good works can’t save a person either. if you don’t have a true/saving faith you can do all kinds of good works/live a moral life and not be raised from the dead/changed at the Second Coming. possibly God will show you mercy at the great white throne judgment and grant you eternal life but that’s not guaranteed. and like the majority you’ll be thrown into the lake of fire and destroyed “body & soul.”
LikeLike
April 23, 2021 at 11:05 am
Paulie writes,
It’s a simple yes or no. That’s all. The question is, can a born again person PRACTICE sin? Yes or no?
The answer that Paulie gives is a dodge. I’m not asking whether a genuine Christian can commit a sin or stumble. The question is whether a genuine Christian can PRACTICE sin.
Now, will you please answer the question? Yes or no?
LikeLike
April 24, 2021 at 5:23 pm
scalia …………. lmao —- i did answer your question and your own words about the Holy Spirit not leaving a person immediately proves you have a serious mental problem. but since you can’t comprehend i’ll answer again more directly.
LOL ……… YES. and hilariously as i said —- your own theory (re: the Holy Spirit continues to indwell a person committing sin for some unspecified amount of time before He leaves) and the apostle Paul’s Holy Spirit inspired words proves me correct —— YES a person indwelt by the Holy Spirit can and does practice sin. but if indwelt by the Holy Spirit those sins are covered with the blood of the Lamb and they will suffer serious consequences for those sins. just like a good parent God corrects His children —– so He doesn’t abandon them but while they remain out of His will —– He won’t answer their prayers, bless them, protect them from the consequences of their actions, ect….. but will still save them in the day of the Lord.
LOL ………. again you people only think to defend your error not about the issue. once indwelt by the Holy Spirit (OS) you are dead to sin as the apostle Paul explains. and God accepted you knowing what sins you will keep doing/do for the rest of your life. see that’s why “His yoke is light” —- Jesus does ALL the work. and again —- you like the “old wine”/works righteousness and not the “new wine”/saved by grace alone because of your faith in Christ alone ………….
LOL …………. dude your whole theology is a perversion to protect your works righteousness heresy. see i can even take the other extreme —– if i answer an altar call, keep the law, do salutary acts/good works but God didn’t choose me so im not indwelt by the Holy Spirit can i be saved in the day of the Lord ?
no —- i can’t because im not born again …… i just think im born again. may be at the great white throne judgment that person will be saved but God doesn’t have to save them.
LOL ………….. you keep forgetting because of what Jesus did God can save whoever He wants even if that person is a unrepentant sinner. God gave Samson his strength back to commit suicide as well as kill a bunch of His enemies —- is Samson going to be saved ? how can he be if suicide is a mortal sin ?
LikeLike
April 24, 2021 at 8:29 pm
@Paulie,
You really didn’t need to post all of that because it’s merely a repetition of what you’ve said a zillion times. Perhaps you think that a flurry of words will make up for your poor arguments. Trust me, it doesn’t.
God’s commandments are not grievous (1 John 5:3), so your comparison with keeping God’s commandments and the “labor” of the world (works of the flesh) is laughable in the extreme. Only an OSAS degenerate would consider God’s commandments a heavy burden to bear. What a joke you are.
You write,
One thing we can agree on is what you’ve been saying for several posts now, but I wanted to make it explicit. So, I can at least thank you for taking the cover completely off and showing everybody just what the OSAS doctrine that you espouse really is.
Before making further remarks, for anybody who’s still following this, that not all OSAS believers agree with Paul Vander Voort. There are OSAS groups who preach a strong message of holiness. They wouldn’t hesitate to deny that the man described in 1 Cor. 5 was genuinely saved, and they are equally insistent that holiness must characterize a person’s life or that person isn’t saved.
Moreover, the notion that Jason Dulle agreed with Paulie is misleading. Jason is a Oneness Pentecostal, and he’s definitely NOT an OSAS believer. He believes that you can certainly lose your salvation, and he adamantly disagrees with the idea that Christians may practice sin. Jason believes that sin itself cannot sever your relationship with God, and in that regard he and I disagree (for the failure to trust God is itself a sin). And Naz, though he has yet to weigh in definitively, has at least stated or strongly implied that a Christian cannot practice sin. So, unless Naz says otherwise, it looks like you’re standing by yourself on this, Paulie.
Now, the notion that the Bible teaches that Christians can practice sin is pure poppycock:
1 John 3:9
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s[a] seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
If somebody is born of God, the “seed” of God literally abide in that person which thus prevents said person from practicing sin.
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Clearly then, WHOEVER practices sin is of the devil, and BY THIS it is evident who are the children of God and who are the children of the devil. WHOEVER DOES NOT PRACTICE RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOT OF GOD.
Thus, Paulie is clearly asserting false doctrine.
4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
Just so there’s no ambiguity, NO ONE WHO KEEPS ON SINNING HAS EITHER SEEN HIM OR KNOWN HIM.
1 John 2
3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,
5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him:
6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
Anybody who says that he knows God and does not keep His commandments IS A LIAR.
Matthew 7
16 You will recognize them [false prophets] by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
The Lord then proceeds to say that not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven….BECAUSE THEY WORK INIQUITY.
Thus, it is clear that working iniquity is equated with bearing bad fruit. A HEALTHY TREE CANNOT BEAR BAD FRUIT and EVERY TREE THAT DOES NOT BEAR GOOD FRUIT IS CUT DOWN AND THROWN INTO THE FIRE.
Thus, under no circumstance can it be said that the man described in 1 Cor. 5 was genuinely born again under an OSAS paradigm. Paulie, your appeal to him is not only discordant with standard OSAS theology, it is wholly unnecessary to appeal to such a bad example to sustain your false doctrine. The only reason I can think of for this insanity is you’re digging in your heels to keep from having to admit that you made a stupendous error. You could have at least retained a tiny sliver of integrity if you had the honesty to admit that the Corinthian man could not have been saved.
God says that nobody born of God practices sin. Paulie says that a person born of God not only can but DOES practice sin. Whom do we believe? We’ll go with the Bible.
LikeLike
April 24, 2021 at 9:49 pm
scalia …………. lmao —- that’s very short compared to your long delusional rants and hilariously if you would’ve just answered our question clearly and completely as we answered yours the discussion would’ve been over pdq.
LOL ………… besides your silly diversions the main argument from your side is silly —– we are saying “works” should be present but those “works” don’t save you. as we said way back most of you morons can’t understand the difference between a false/dead faith and a true/saving faith.
LOL …………. there you go again playing your lying retard game. it’s symbolic language —- what does Jesus mean by His yoke is light ? it clearly means He does the work. those with a true/saving faith love to do God’s will. so because you don’t have an argument you say silly things —– the bible clearly teaches exceptions to the rule. God can show mercy to who ever He wants to show mercy —- your 1 size formula boxes God in and that proves it you with the problem.
LOL …………. but the Holy Spirit inspired writing of the apostle Paul shows the exception and even your idiotic take on the Holy Spirit proves me right.
or are you going to back track now and say …… yes, when you commit a mortal sin the Holy Spirit leaves until you repent ? so it’s you that’s boxed yourself in not me.
LOL ………….. so just like you profess that the Holy Spirit can indwell a person willfully committing mortal sin ……….. so do I because the bible says so and once you’ve died with Christ (indwelt/OS) sin has no power over you anymore.
LikeLike
April 24, 2021 at 11:12 pm
You’ve been checkmated, Paul, and no amount of ranting will change that. You call God’s word a “silly diversion”?? The real “LOL” is this comment:
No, you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, which is what I’ve pointed out time and again. On the one hand, you say that “works should be present,” and on the other hand, you say that works don’t have to be present. The best you can spin that is say that “should” is merely a divine recommendation that isn’t obligatory. Regrettably, for you, that’s not what the Bible says. Re-read the verses that you’ve ignored time and again. They do not merely recommend holiness; it is what constitutes a genuine Christian.
You’re conveniently forgetting that OSAS theologians agree that holiness MUST be present in a Christian’s life. They DO NOT teach that works save a person, but that they NECESSARILY FOLLOW a genuine Christian’s life. Works are characteristic of a Christian’s life because God’s seed abides in that person. Therefore, a real Christian CANNOT PRACTICE SIN. What you’re deliberately ignoring is I’ve been adopting the OSAS position to show you that your appeal to 1 Cor. 5 is an obvious belly-flop. You’re insisting that a man who practices sin, indeed, every Christian practices sin according to you, is genuinely born again when the Bible clearly and unmistakably says that such a person IS NOT BORN OF GOD.
What part of “cannot practice sin” isn’t clear to you? What part of “cannot practice sin” don’t you understand?
If you practice sin, you are not a Christian. That’s what the Bible says.
1 John 3:9
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
If somebody is born of God, the “seed” of God literally abides in that person which thus prevents said person from practicing sin.
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Clearly then, WHOEVER practices sin is of the devil, and BY THIS it is evident who are the children of God and who are the children of the devil. WHOEVER DOES NOT PRACTICE RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOT OF GOD.
Thus, Paulie is clearly asserting false doctrine.
4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
Just so there’s no ambiguity, NO ONE WHO KEEPS ON SINNING HAS EITHER SEEN HIM OR KNOWN HIM.
1 John 2
3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,
5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him:
6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
Anybody who says that he knows God and does not keep His commandments IS A LIAR.
Matthew 7
16 You will recognize them [false prophets] by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
The Lord then proceeds to say that not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven….BECAUSE THEY WORK INIQUITY.
Thus, it is clear that working iniquity is equated with bearing bad fruit. A HEALTHY TREE CANNOT BEAR BAD FRUIT and EVERY TREE THAT DOES NOT BEAR GOOD FRUIT IS CUT DOWN AND THROWN INTO THE FIRE.
Thus, under no circumstance can it be said that the man described in 1 Cor. 5 was genuinely born again under an OSAS paradigm. Paulie, your appeal to him is not only discordant with standard OSAS theology, it is wholly unnecessary to appeal to such a bad example to sustain your false doctrine. The only reason I can think of for this insanity is you’re digging in your heels to keep from having to admit that you made a stupendous error. You could have at least retained a tiny sliver of integrity if you had the honesty to admit that the Corinthian man could not have been saved.
God says that nobody born of God practices sin. Paulie says that a person born of God not only can but DOES practice sin. Whom do we believe? We’ll go with the Bible.
Oh, and by the way…
Matthew 11
28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
Thus, His audience didn’t have the rest He promised which of course means that they were still in their sins. A person living in sin is laboring with the works of the flesh which is what transgression is. That’s what the “rest” is all about—release from the curse of sin. It has NOTHING to do with the good works which are characteristic of all genuine Christians. Good works which God commands are not burdensome.
@Naz
Still waiting for you to chime in on this, Bub.
LikeLike
April 25, 2021 at 10:15 pm
scalia ………….. still lmao as you are contradicting yourself about the Holy Spirit being able to stay in a believer that’s committing mortal sin for some time & now arguing the bible contradicts itself because an indwelt believer can’t sin.
LOL …………. you do that because you have a reprobate mind —- stating the apostle Paul isn’t saying what he’s clearly saying because you interpret other verses so that’s impossible …… that type of argument is delusional unless you can prove both of your interpretations are correct. we’ve proven he clearly says that person committing “incest” will be saved & the other group you mention are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
there’s a simple explanation which our side has given you that you refuse to accept because you are delusional —– there’s 2 groups, the 1st group is not indwelt and the 2nd group is 1 person the apostle Paul mentions will be save so is indwelt.
LOL ………… but again you just keep proving how delusional you are in defending your works righteousness heresy. even if you could prove the 1 person the apostle Paul mentions committing “incest” is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit …….. that in no way destroys let alone even dents our argument. the only thing it would do is prove since he’s not indwelt he’s not OS therefore he’s not AS.
LOL ………… and why would Naz or anybody else weigh in you have proved by your own words that you are a delusional fool.
LikeLike
April 26, 2021 at 12:36 am
The two groups are the children of God and the children of the devil. The children of God cannot practice sin and the children of the devil practice sin. There’s no two ways about it.
You’ve proven no such thing because nowhere does the text say that the man in question was “indwelt by the Holy Spirit.” Nowhere does it say that he was born again. And nowhere does it say that he WILL be saved. It only says that he “may” be saved. So, you’re clearly firing blanks.
Moreover, since the Bible repeatedly says that a true believer cannot practice sin, then by definition that man could not have been a true believer under an OSAS paradigm. The true delusion is on your part, because you’re directly and clearly opposing the plain teaching of Scripture.
The Bible says that a real Christian cannot practice sin. You say that a real Christian can practice sin. We’ll go with the Bible.
LikeLike
April 26, 2021 at 7:51 am
The Hoot writes,
Nobody says that an “indwelt” believer cannot sin, and you know that (another instance of your lying). I have repeated myself too many times for you to have “misunderstood” me or the biblical text. The question isn’t whether a genuine Christian can sin; the question is whether a genuine Christian can PRACTICE sin. And in that regard, the Bible is clear: A Christian CANNOT PRACTICE sin.
Moreover, at this point it has nothing to do with whether my theology is correct. As I told you, I’ve been approaching this from an OSAS paradigm (assuming it arguendo), to demonstrate the absurdity of your approach. You’re not fighting me, Paul, you’re fighting many of your fellow OSAS believers because you’ve directly stated that genuine Christian not only can, but they DO practice sin when the Bible clearly says that they cannot. Even if I’m all wet when it comes to works, you’ve hung yourself.
And no matter how much you flail your arms, you cannot deny that you are directly contradicting the biblical text:
1 John 3
6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
So, Paul, the Bible clearly states that NO ONE who keeps on sinning has seen or known God, and NO ONE born of God makes a practice of sin. But you say that the Bible here is wrong. You’ve clearly said that a Christian practices sin. Why are you contradicting these verses?
LikeLike
April 26, 2021 at 4:40 pm
scalia ………… lmao —– im not “contradicting these verses” oh delusional one.
it’s you contradicting yourself about the Holy Spirit and arguing God contradicts Himself by stating the bible has contradictions.
LOL ………… there’s no problem for me because the apostle Paul is speaking about 1 saved person and the verses you say are contradictions are general verses about unsaved persons. that’s what you reprobates do —– mix up apples and oranges. it’s you that boxed yourself in by saying the Holy Spirit can indwell a believer that has committed mortal sin not me. im just saying once indwelt the Holy Spirit won’t leave because of the numerous verses proving God will not abandon His children —– very sound theology. the rules for the saved are not the same as those for the unsaved and God clearly teaches He can have mercy on those He wants to show mercy.
LOL ………… but even if you could prove the greek of 1 Corr 5: 5 proves it’s “might be saved” —- it doesn’t. that’s still not a problem as that does not destroy our position. again, reprobates like you jam together 2 different arguments …….. that’s because they are 2 arguments that don’t refute each other. the 1 is —- is that man committing “incest” saved ? the apostle Paul clearly says yes. but since we don’t have all of the details that’s all we know. so why disagree with his crystal clear meaning when you don’t have all of the facts —– it’s because you are delusional and you have to make it fit your fasle teaching or your error is exposed. the 2nd is —- once indwelt by the Holy Spirit will He leave you ? and again there is no evidence He will leave you and a ton of evidence saying He won’t leave you. and the bible is crystal clear —- if indwelt by the Holy Spirit you will be saved.
LOL ……….. and again you expose your delusion by now “APPEARING TO CHANGE” the argument. i wrote it that way so you can’t say im lying even though that’s what you’ve done. because you are now arguing the works righteousness heresy on steroids —– you are saying you have to be perfect to be saved when the bible is clear no one but Jesus lived and could live a perfect life. every one knows those verses mean we are only perfect because we take on Jesus’ righteousness.
LOL …………. being perfect is not the good news………… that’s bad news because we can’t be perfect because the law even condemns our thoughts and inactions. even those cre cre works righteous heretics i grew up with are that delusional —– they argue their good will out weigh their bad so God will save them ……. meaning if i get 50% on the test i pass. you are arguing you need to get a perfect 100% score on the test to pass. hilarious some of my trade courses you need 70% to pass and some safety courses you need 80% to pass.
LOL …………. apparently it’s just going to be you and a few scribes and Pharisees that get saved on the day of the Lord.
LikeLike
April 26, 2021 at 6:42 pm
It’s really amusing how Paulie sidesteps the issue, and by now it’s very clear that he’s doing it deliberately because he’s hung himself.
I’ll rebut the diversionary things later, but I only have time right now to address the main point:
Paul, yes you are a bald-faced liar. I never said that a person has to be perfect, but honesty hasn’t been your strong suit for some time.
Do you even know what “practicing sin” is? Of course you do. Hint: It doesn’t mean perfection, and it doesn’t mean 100%. The question is of course rhetorical because you know good and well what it means. You’re merely feigning ignorance as a diversionary tactic because you know there’s not a snowball’s chance in Riyadh that you can talk your way out of 1 John 3 (which is why you’re avoiding it like the plague).
So, man up, Paulie, or at least ask your mommy for some help….
1 John 3
6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
Here’s the question you keep avoiding. Why do you insist that genuine Christians practice sin when the Bible says that it’s impossible for them to practice sin?
LikeLike
April 26, 2021 at 10:58 pm
Now, let’s see what Reformed (Calvinistic) theologians think of 1 John 3:
John Gill, regarding 1 John 3:6 –
sinneth not; not that he has no sin in him, or lives without sin, but he does not live in sin, nor give up himself to a vicious course of life; for this would be inconsistent with his dwelling in Christ, and enjoying communion with him:
whosoever sinneth; which is not to be understood of a single action, but of a course of sinning:
hath not seen him, neither known him; that is, he has never seen Christ with an eye of faith…nor has he ever savingly known him, or been experimentally acquainted with him; for though he may profess to know him in words, he denies him in works.
And with respect to verse 9…
doth not commit sin; does not make it his trade and business; it is not the constant course of his life; he does not live and walk in sin, or give up himself to it; he is not without the being of it in him, or free from acts of sin in his life and conversation, but he does not so commit it as to be the servant of it, a slave unto it, or to continue in it…
and he cannot sin…he that is born of God, as he is born of God, or that which is born of God in him, the new man, or new creature, cannot sin; for that is pure and holy; there is nothing sinful in it, nor can anything that is sinful come out of it, or be done by it…
because he is born of God: for that which is born of God in him, does, under the influence of the Spirit, power, and grace of God, preserve him from the temptations of Satan, the pollutions of the world, and the corruptions of his own heart
Is Paulie going to ROFL and LOL at John Gill? He is saying the same thing I’ve been arguing.
John Calvin:
Whosoever committeth, or doeth, sin…The import of the passage is, that the perverse life of those who indulge themselves in the liberty of sinning, is hateful to God, and cannot be borne with by him, because it is contrary to his Law. It does not hence follow, nor can it be hence inferred, that the faithful are iniquitous; because they desire to obey God, and abhor their own vices, and that in every instance; and they also form their own life, as much as in them lieth, according to the law. But when there is a deliberate purpose to sin, or a continued course in sin, then the law is transgressed.
(said passage is footnoted: To do, or to commit, or to work, or to practice, sin, and to sin, are evidently used in the same sense by the Apostle: and to commit or practice sin, according to what he says in his Gospel, (John 8:34,) is the same with being “the servant of sin.” It is hence evident, that in the language of John, to do sin, or to sin, means a prevailing or an habitual course of sinning.)
Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him…Christ is never dormant where he reigns, but the Spirit renders effectual his power. And it may be rightly said of him, that he puts sin to flight, not otherwise than as the sun drives away darkness by its own brightness. But we are again taught in this place how strong and efficacious is the knowledge of Christ; for it transforms us into his image. So by seeing and knowing we are to understand no other thing than faith.
He that committeth sin, This word, to commit, or to do, refers also to outward works, so that the meaning is, that there is no life of God and of Christ, where men act perversely and wickedly, but that such are, on the contrary, the slaves of the devil; and by this way of speaking he sets forth more fully how unlike they are to Christ…He denied that any one belongs to Christ except he who is righteous and shews himself to be such by his works.
He says that they sin not who are born of God…what the Apostle contends for stands unalterable, that the design of regeneration is to destroy sin, and that all who are born of God lead a righteous and a holy life, because the Spirit of God restrains the lusting of sin.
The Apostle means the same thing by the seed of God; for God’s Spirit so forms the hearts of the godly for holy affections, that the flesh and its lusts do not prevail, but being subdued and put as it were under a yoke, they are checked and restrained. In short, the Apostle ascribes to the Spirit the sovereignty in the elect, who by his power represses sin and suffers it not to rule and reign…
And he cannot sin Here the Apostle ascends higher, for he plainly declares that the hearts of the godly are so effectually governed by the Spirit of God, that through an inflexible disposition they follow his guidance…for he not only shews that we cannot sin, but also that the power of the Spirit is so effectual, that it necessarily retains us in continual obedience to righteousness. Nor is this the only passage of Scripture which teaches us that the will is so formed that it cannot be otherwise than right. For God testifies that he gives a new heart to his children, and promises to do this, that they may walk in his commandments. Besides, John not only shews how efficaciously God works once in man, but plainly declares that the Spirit continues his grace in us to the last, so that inflexible perseverance is added to newness of life. Let us not, then, imagine with the Sophists that it is some neutral movement, which leaves men free either to follow or to reject; but let us know that our own hearts are so ruled by God’s Spirit, that they constantly cleave to righteousness.
How about some more ROFLs and LOLs from the Vander Voort gallery! Are these the rantings of a delusional reprobate?
R. C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries:
Moreover, believers will not persist in unrighteousness because God’s seed dwells within them (3:9)…when God calls a person to Himself, He transforms his very nature so that he will be able to love and practice righteousness. In the new birth, we have been given everything we need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), and by His grace this godliness will become more and more evident as we progress in our sanctification…
The distinction John makes between children of God and children of the Devil denies any naive assertion that all people have God as their Father. Only those who are in Christ by faith and therefore submit to Him as Lord have God as their Father. Anyone who gleefully indulges in sin or takes it too lightly has no right to call God Father.
Now, as I’ve stated repeatedly, I have lately been adopting the standard OSAS position to demonstrate that the man in Corinth could not have been saved due to the plain teaching in 1 John 3 that Christians cannot practice (or deliberately adopt) sin. As the above commentary proves beyond any shadow of doubt, leading OSAS theologians (and these few can be multiplied considerably) interpret 1 John 3 THE SAME WAY PENTECOSTALS DO. Indeed, one doesn’t have to be a Calvinist or a Pentecostal to see the plain its plain teaching (as well as many verses throughout the New Testament which teach the same principle).
Godliness characterizes every genuine Christian’s life. If godliness does not characterize a person’s life, then he or she is not a genuine Christian. This has nothing to do with 100% or absolute perfection. It has everything to do with the obvious direction of a person’s life. A person who murders thousands of people every day and commits adultery thousands of times every day has an obvious direction in life, and that is unrighteousness. It is IMPOSSIBLE under an OSAS paradigm for a genuine child of God to do that because God’s seed in a person prevents a true believer from doing such things.
It is thus clear that the incestuous man in Corinth could not have been saved under any OSAS standard. The text does NOT say that the man was saved. The text does NOT say that the man had the Holy Ghost. The text does NOT say that the man WILL be saved. It merely says that the man “may” be saved after his buffeting by Satan. And of course, one doesn’t have to go to the “Greek” in order to prove it. All major translations translate the passage the same way. The man’s destiny is conditional.
LikeLike
April 27, 2021 at 6:51 pm
scalia ……………. lmao —- wrong again oh delusional one because the apostle Paul clearly says the man from Corinth is saved —- because he will be saved in the day of the Lord. but still irrelevant because even if wrong that does not disprove osas.
LOL ……….. like all reprobates you ignore the problems with your theology and twist and pervert our biblical sound theology.
LOL ………… did Jesus live a prefect sinless life — that is ….. He did not sin OR He did sin but the Father did not hold His sin against Him ? 2 very different things and would mean He lived a perfect life. and i won’t even argue the greek meaning of word translated as “perfect,” that’s because i don’t have to.
LOL ……….. sorry oh delusional one as our theology is biblically correct —- we try to live as Jesus did but we can’t, so when we mess up/sin, we the Holy Spirit indwelt believers are forgiven. our sins are not held against us so we are perfect because they are covered with the blood of the Lamb and the Father doesn’t see them —- He only sees the righteousness of Jesus. and that’s not limited to 70×7 is it ?
LOL …………. that’s the purpose of the law and Jesus’ teaching about being perfect — He tells us we can’t so we have to go to Him in faith and accept His free gift of His righteousness.
LOL ………… and hilariously you whine about my long posts when yours are longer and sillier —- not even clearly stating what you believe so you can remain in your delusion.
LikeLike
April 28, 2021 at 12:38 am
Paulie writes,
Wrong again, Paulie. Do you know what a bald assertion is? Saying something is so doesn’t make it so. You have, in effect, said nothing. This passage does not say that the man was born again. It does not say that the man had the Holy Ghost, and it does not say that the man WILL be saved. It says he “MAY” be saved. Did you ever look up that word? The primary definition of “may” is “used to express possibility – it ‘may’ rain.” Secondary definitions are – “Used to express opportunity or permission – you ‘may’ enter. Used to express contingency.” It is thus a future conditional in 1 Cor. 5 and not an absolute. If the passage had said “will be saved,” you could at least make an argument that the man might have been originally saved, but the conditional leaves you without any textual support.
Moreover, he could not have been saved pursuant to 1 John 3. By the way, you’re still not answering the question. I’ll put it in all caps since you keep missing it: WHY DO YOU SAY THAT CHRISTIANS PRACTICE SIN WHEN THE BIBLE SAYS THAT CHRISTIANS CANNOT PRACTICE SIN? Will you please answer that question?
Actually, everybody who has read this thread will tell you otherwise. I have completely and repeatedly addressed every passage and every issue you’ve raised. You’re just simply not telling the truth.
Moreover, I have conceded arguendo that I’m wrong in everything. I freely acknowledge my error for argument’s sake and have adopted the traditional OSAS position in order to move beyond this stupid logjam of ignorance you continue to create.
How in the world can I “pervert” your “sound” theology when I’ve freely and extensively quoted prominent figures in your movement? The one who’s perverting OSAS teaching is Paul Vander Voort, not me. Traditional OSAS teachers taught holiness and consecration. As their quotations above prove, GENUINE CHRISTIANS CANNOT PRACTICE SIN. THEY CANNOT MAKE SIN A HABIT. THEY CANNOT LIVE IN SIN. And it’s not because they believed that works save anybody. They believed that regeneration created a condition in every true believer that PREVENTED their adopting a sinful lifestyle. And that’s why they could say that any person living in sin proves that he never belonged to Christ. Christ works holiness in every believer. If holiness isn’t evident in a “believer,” then it follows that Christ is not there.
Actually, what’s YOUR theology is not Gill’s or Calvin’s or Sproul’s. Need a reminder?
Calvin – “He that committeth sin, This word, to commit, or to do,refers also to outward works, so that the meaning is, that there is no life of God and of Christ where men act perversely and wickedly, but that such are, on the contrary, the slaves of the devil; and by this way of speaking he sets forth more fully how unlike they are to Christ…He denied that any one belongs to Christ except he who is righteous and shews himself to be such by his works.”
Gill – “whosoever sinneth; which is not to be understood of a single action, but of a course of sinning:
hath not seen him, neither known him; that is, he has never seen Christ with an eye of faith…nor has he ever savingly known him, or been experimentally acquainted with him; for though he may profess to know him in words, he denies him in works.”
Nope, I haven’t perverted a thing, and you know good and well that I haven’t. According to traditional OSAS teaching, works cannot save you, but works are necessarily part of a Christian’s life because of the working of the Holy Ghost therein. And all genuinely born again Christians are thus prevented from living in sin, not due to their own efforts, but precisely because the “seed” of God abides in them and perpetually steers them into righteousness. And that’s how everybody knows the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil. God’s children live holy and the devil’s children live in sin. So, though a Christian may stumble now and then and show that in this “earnest” state his fallibility, it is IMPOSSIBLE for said Christian to live in sin. That’s why anybody who says that he knows God and doesn’t keep His commandments IS A LIAR AND THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM (that’s a biblical quotation, Paulie). From an OSAS perspective, that’s not human effort in keeping the law for salvation; it’s the working of the Holy Spirit in an individual which causes him to keep God’s commandments. If a holiness lifestyle is not present, then God is not present, plain and simple.
So, again the question: WHY DO YOU SAY THAT EVERY GENUINE CHRISTIAN PRACTICES SIN WHEN THE BIBLE SAYS THAT GENUINE CHRISTIANS CANNOT PRACTICE SIN?
LikeLike
April 28, 2021 at 5:59 pm
“you and scalia just keep proving how delusional you both are.”
Hmm, I base my beliefs entirely on evidence, rational thought and critical thinking…yet I’M the one who’s delusional? O-kay, then.
“your other comment was retarded because anyone with even a tiny bit of biblical knowledge knows Jesus’ own words prove He uses language so those that don’t belong to Him will “hear but not understand.””
Oh, I’m aware of that. Unlike most Christians, I’ve read multiple versions of the Bible cover-to-cover, read countless articles on the Bible, and even consulted with a couple of biblical scholars. But what you’re pointing out is a contradiction, since the Bible also clearly states that God wants EVERYONE to be saved:
• 1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants ALL PEOPLE to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
• 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, NOT WANTING ANYONE TO PERISH, but everyone to come to repentance.
Using language to deliberately obfuscate meaning from those who might otherwise be drawn to Jesus’ messaging is contrary to the above passages. Let me be clear, I’m not arguing that one side or the other is true (you tend to want to categorize me that way), merely that the Bible contains a multitude of contradictions like this.
I’m aware that it’s possible to massage the direct interpretation to mean the opposite of what it says (that’s possible to do with almost anything if one wants to get creative enough), but that makes little sense if the Bible is the written word of a perfect God. What it most closely resembles is the cobbled-together words of different people with different beliefs and perspectives, not something a good God would provide as an instruction manual for salvation.
Keep in mind that the Bible is a mix of oral stories written by anonymous sources, and that the original works were translated multiple times and copied countless times, with almost none of the original works having survived, and the earliest full copies of the Bible are hundreds of years older than the original works. This is guaranteed to result in multiple profound errors in today’s versions of the Bible. As such, your constant arguments with Scalia about subtle differences in interpretation comes off as theologians arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
“and you keep proving your error —- God doesn’t lie. you like scalia ignore the evidence that we have that has disproved every single contradiction you new atheists/atheists/agnostics/anti Christians have brought forth. if you would’ve done your research with an open mind you wouldn’t post such idiotic things that you do —- like there is a contradiction on this issue OR God doesn’t use language so people like you and scalia will not understand.”
Okay, what you’re doing here is called an ad hominem fallacy–meaning you’re trying to “win” the argument by insulting, rather than providing evidence to support your claim. Someone who is confident in his answers would never have to resort to such claims.
I provided clear biblical evidence that God is willing and able to lie. The Bible ALSO says in various places (e.g., Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began) that God cannot lie. That’s a clear contradiction. It seems you prefer to simply dismiss claims that don’t fit your narrative about God. Perhaps, like some, you play word games with yourself, like claiming God MAKING people lie is not the same as God DIRECTLY lying…which should give you little solace and certainly isn’t a convincing argument for those seeking honest answers.
In any event, after asking you, Scalia and Naz for a reasonable counter to my “Infinite Universes” problem of God, but receiving nothing, it’s pretty clear to me that there is no answer. It doesn’t even appear to bother any of you that such a conundrum exists. To me, that seems unconscionable–you worship a being you can’t even credibly demonstrate whether he’s evil or not…yet it doesn’t bother you one whit.
I guess that’s faith for you: believing in what you believe despite a lack of evidence, or even in spite of evidence to the contrary. Considering there is absolutely nothing that cannot be believed based on faith, and faith is a necessary REQUIREMENT for any false religion (since obviously it wouldn’t be supported by the evidence), I think beliefs based on faith stand on very weak foundations indeed.
But then what do I know? I’m just delusional. 😉
LikeLike
April 28, 2021 at 6:08 pm
derekmathais ………. that’s right you are delusional and —- it’s my evidence that’s rock solid you just ignore the facts —- just like scalia.
LOL ……… and you prove it again —- you can’t use the bible to prove God lied not just because of the way it’s written but you can only prove our God is lying which you haven’t even come close to doing.
LikeLike
April 28, 2021 at 6:28 pm
scalia ………. lmao —- yes we did prove that man is saved. and you didn’t disprove that’s what the apostle Paul said you only tried to disprove that’s what he said by misinterpreting other verses. you played the lying retard game by saying this verse disproves that verses w/o first poking holes in the verse you want to disprove. but that’s what reprobates like you and dm do —- ignore the evidence that proves you wrong and twists and perverts our evidence proving you are wrong.
LOL …… sorry oh delusional your reprobate mind is still trying to take my sound biblical theology and say it’s wrong because it doesn’t fit your false teaching …….. which hilariously nobody else believes but you.
LOL ….. only Jesus is perfect because only Jesus never sinned. since ALL the rest of us have sinned we can not be perfect only have our imperfections ignored by God. He removes them from us as far “as the east is from the west.” and that’s why the Holy Spirit can indwell the man from Corinth even though he’s willfully sinning. because God chose him, entered into a binding permanent covenant, even knowing he would do that so He doesn’t abandon him.
LOL …… and hilariously while you were trying to disprove he was saved
you contradicted yourself by saying the Holy Spirit can’t indwell a willful sinner when you previously stated the Holy Spirit can indwell a willful sinner for sometime to avoid the jumps in/out over and over problem the others have.
LOL ….. so are argument is “rock” solid —- it confirms God will not abandon His children and gives Him the power He says He has to show mercy to who He wants to show mercy and not show mercy to who He doesn’t want to. yours crashes and burns based on your own argument
leaving the only reasonable and logical explanation that is also biblically based —– it has to be a true/saving faith NOT a false/dead faith
LikeLike
April 29, 2021 at 12:06 am
Paulie writes,
“We”? “We”?? You and who else? Certainly not Jason. He never commented on the subject. And certainly not Naz. If it were so crystal clear that this man was saved, why isn’t Naz on board with it? Naz clearly said that he guessed the man wasn’t a genuine Christian, but he reserved complete judgment due to lack of information. In other words, it’s not clear to him that the man was really saved, and given the evidence, Naz guesses that he wasn’t, but was open to the idea due to missing information. In other words, according to Naz, there’s not enough evidence in the text you cite to conclude that this man was a genuine Christian. So, there’s no “we” about it, but as I said, honesty isn’t your strong suit.
What other verses am I misinterpreting? You’re certainly not referring to 1 John 3, are you? Because if I’m misinterpreting them, so are all the traditional OSAS theologians, a few of whom I’ve liberally quoted above. They interpret the critical passages EXACTLY AS I DO.
Moreover, I don’t even need to refer to other verses to demonstrate your error because the text itself contains NO evidence that the man was a genuine Christian. First, it never says that he was born again. Second, it never says that he had the Holy Ghost. Third, it says that he should be delivered to Satan so that he “may” be saved. You really, REALLY need to sue the school you went to (if you indeed went to school) for malpractice because they didn’t teach you the difference between “may” and “will.” The word “will” is NOT in that passage, so you have NO EVIDENCE that the man was saved.
And since you clearly have a hard time following an argument, I am conceding that I am in error for sake of argument, so your continued harping about it clearly shows your desperation in trying to avoid what you’ve been asked, I think, at least five times: WHY DO YOU SAY THAT GENUINE CHRISTIANS PRACTICE SIN WHEN THE BIBLE SAYS THAT GENUINE CHRISTIANS CANNOT PRACTICE SIN?
The Bible clearly says that real Christians cannot live in sin and the leading OSAS theologians of history clearly agree with that. You’re not only out of step with the Bible, you’re out of step with your own theologians.
LikeLike
April 29, 2021 at 10:41 am
@Derek, you write,
It doesn’t bother me because that’s a longstanding objection that’s been addressed many times. I’ve personally taught on the issue several times in our church and online. I don’t expect that to satisfy you, but that doesn’t bother me either. If for no other reason, the problem of evil isn’t the topic of this thread, and I’m well-known for refusing to go off-topic—tangents, yes, full-blown discussions, no.
LikeLike
April 29, 2021 at 2:32 pm
scalia ……… lmao ——- “we” as in the side that believes the man from Corinth was saved because of what the apostle Paul wrote.
LOL ……… all you did is argue “we” are wrong because you say other biblical evidence proves what the apostle Paul clearly states can’t mean what it means —– that’s delusional and ignores the fact you could very well be misinterpreting those verses because of your bias. and “we” gave credible evidence why your evidence is false and our interpretation is correct.
LOL ………. you even contradict yourself oh delusional one —- by saying the Holy Spirit couldn’t indwell the man from Corinth when you previously
made a general statement that the Holy Spirit can continue to indwell a willful sinner for an unspecified period of time. again this proves you are delusional.
LOL ……….. you and delusional dm ignore the very simple explanation that proves no contradiction exists on our part and that’s because “we” know both sides of the disagreement —– it’s all goes back to the works righteousness heretics main error based on a misinterpretation of “faith without works is dead.” therefore, they erroneously believe “faith alone” means no works. most do this even after “we” explain because they are delusional too. they suffer from LDS (luther derangement syndrome) and are so delusional they can’t see past their hatred for luther and that their “church” can be wrong.
LikeLike
April 29, 2021 at 6:23 pm
When caught in another lie, Paulie tells more lies! Nobody says “we did prove” when you’ve offered no evidence other than your unsupported opinion on the matter. If you had cited another source with evidence from that source that supports that claim, then the use of “we” is appropriate. The only thing you’ve offered here is the broken record skip, “he was saved, he was saved, he was saved…” That convinces nobody, even yourself. You don’t even believe that that man was saved else you would offer more than bare repetition.
And the lies keep rolling off your tongue. Your own theologians say that, Paul. And that’s why you’re desperately avoiding the subject. The Bible directly states that no genuine Christian can live in sin, but you WILL NOT accept what’s plainly in the text. In fact, you don’t even have to “interpret” the passage—just read it for what it says! Seriously, if the Bible says that the sky is blue, if it contradicted what you wanted to believe, you’d deny it!
On the other hand, you’re reading into 1 Cor. 5 what it doesn’t say. It doesn’t say that man was born again. It doesn’t say that man was saved. And it doesn’t say that man had the Holy Ghost. It says that man MAY (not will) be saved after his buffeting by Satan. And even your fellow OSAS believer, Naz, cannot see that man’s salvation in that passage.
So, let me ask you (not that it will do any good), is Naz “delusional”? Is Naz playing a “lying retard” game? If the matter is so clear, why can’t your teammate see it? You know why? BECAUSE IT’S NOT THERE.
WHY DO YOU SAY THAT GENUINE CHRISTIANS WILL PRACTICE SIN WHEN THE BIBLE SAYS THAT GENUINE CHRISTIANS CANNOT SIN?
LikeLike
April 30, 2021 at 5:20 pm
scalia ………… lmao —– even your own words prove me correct oh delusional one.
LOL ………. even in your own scenario indwelt believers can sin for a time.
LOL ………. “we” did prove God can turn a blind eye to His children when they sin if He wants because of what Jesus did
LikeLike
May 3, 2021 at 5:27 pm
“that’s right you are delusional and —- it’s my evidence that’s rock solid you just ignore the facts —- just like scalia.”
Hmm, I don’t think you’re using the right term. Here, let me provide you with the definition of delusional: “believing things that are not true” (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/delusional), “having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/delusional), and “an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument” (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/delusion).
Unlike you, I’m not expressing any belief, nor have I contradicted reality or made an irrational argument, nor have I ignored any facts germane to this discussion. Now if I were to make the claim that the Bible is the true word of God, without providing credible evidence for the existence of God or that the Bible is actually God’s word, and if I were to further make claims about God based on certain biblical passages while ignoring other passages, THAT would be delusional, would it not?
“and you prove it again —- you can’t use the bible to prove God lied not just because of the way it’s written but you can only prove our God is lying which you haven’t even come close to doing.”
When the Bible itself clearly indicates God lies–or at least causes people to lie–then please explain how it is delusional to conclude that the Bible indicates God lies.
Furthermore, I asked you to please respond to my “infinite universes” problem for God, and you’ve avoided responding to it. I must therefore conclude that you likely don’t have any reasonable response for how God could be considered good, given that argument. If that’s true, and you still believe God is good despite that problem, does that not make you delusional, by definition?
LikeLike
May 3, 2021 at 5:36 pm
“It doesn’t bother me because that’s a longstanding objection that’s been addressed many times. I’ve personally taught on the issue several times in our church and online. I don’t expect that to satisfy you, but that doesn’t bother me either. If for no other reason, the problem of evil isn’t the topic of this thread, and I’m well-known for refusing to go off-topic—tangents, yes, full-blown discussions, no.”
Well, to me it sounds like evasion, so yes, I am not satisfied by that response. However, I truly am interested to know if and how you can respond to this “infinite universes” problem for God. If you would prefer to give your response elsewhere, or even via email, I would be fine with that. But I don’t think this is too off topic to include here, since this thread is ultimately about what determines salvation.
LikeLike
May 3, 2021 at 8:10 pm
derekmathais ……….. you people are hilarious. so you believe there are “infinite universes ?” even if proven that is no problem for God. it’s delusional to NOT believe in God not the reverse. 1 or many universes is irrelevant, it’s logical and reasonable to state there had to be a 1st cause not bound by space, time and matter. and this 1st cause had a plan because in this universe it’s mathematically impossible ALL this happened by chance —- there just isn’t enough time based on when life started on earth.
you use the same delusional logic to argue against faith alone as you do for your new atheistic worldview.
LikeLike
May 3, 2021 at 8:37 pm
@Derek
I answered that in Post 148. It isn’t a “problem” at all. If it can be proved that God is good (and it can), then it follows that if evil is present, there is a morally justifiable reason for it—full stop, end of story. It is irrelevant whether in an infinity of universes Universe X could be made in such a manner as to meet Derek’s approval. The presence of evil is justified whether or not we can figure out its warrant and whether or not we approve of the present one. Again, the question turns on whether a good God exists. “Evil” is a red herring.
The problem of evil is powerfully emotional, which is why many atheists stridently push it, but since it is at bottom an emotional appeal, it is therefore irrelevant.
LikeLike
May 4, 2021 at 10:42 am
derekmathais ……….. in the way i used “delusional” here on this site ……. i am using it correctly as in biblically —- the “strong delusion.” if you aren’t familiar you can google the verse. and yes you did contradict yourself —- if “infinite universes” can exist an “infinite being” can exist.
lol ………. and since you are delusional —- you ignore TR, Naz and myself which gave a biblical, logical and reasonable argument for “faith alone” as we define it.
lol ………. again, at least you are intellectually honest in your conclusion on this topic which you misinterpret to prove your false belief there is no 1st cause outside of time, space and the material.
LikeLike
May 5, 2021 at 5:21 pm
“poor lost scalia can’t see he is really arguing that God is a liar”
You may not like it, Paul, but there is biblical evidence that God is a liar. I’ve already posted this before, and nobody has successfully refuted it:
• 1 Kings 22:23 So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. [God forces people to lie.]
• 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
• Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet.
Yes, the Bible does say in Titus 1:2 “in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time” and in Hebrews 6:18 “That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.” But does that mean you should feel free to ignore the parts of the Bible that don’t fit your narrative?
I think we can agree that an evil God would have no problem lying, right? And that would include lying about being incapable of lying, since it would be self-serving to make people think you can’t lie. But would a good God claim not to lie but then also force people to lie? Trying to parse that to say God doesn’t LIE, he just DECEIVES people is splitting hairs, don’t you think? And is that something a good God would do? I don’t think there’s any getting around that problem without just sticking your head in the sand and refusing to consider how such passages can be seen as evidence for an evil God.
So if Scalia is claiming God lies (I don’t know if he does, since I don’t read most of your exchanges), then I don’t think you can honestly dismiss that.
LikeLike
May 5, 2021 at 9:06 pm
derekmathias …………. lol ……. evidence according to you but you want it to be true. where as i just follow the evidence to it’s logical conclusion even if proven wrong.
lol ………… so you are going to play scalia’s game ? i answered that above i believe ………. you don’t have to use the words “God is a liar” to say God is a liar. by arguing the Holy Spirit will leave an indwelt believer scalia is arguing God will abandon you. and since God says He won’t abandon us in the bible that’s the same as saying “God is a liar.”
LikeLike
May 6, 2021 at 11:16 am
@Derek writes,
No, I have never claimed nor have I argued that God lies or is a liar.
LikeLike
May 6, 2021 at 1:56 pm
lol ……….. if some one says it’s delusional to believe in God or osas. did they call a person who believes in God or osas delusional ? same goes for saying God will abandon you if God said He won’t abandon you. is that calling God a liar ?
lol ………… yes/yes they did, but since they are the ones that are delusional they can’t see it/won’t admit it.
LikeLike
May 6, 2021 at 2:15 pm
Look, Paulie, I was content to give you the last word and stop this ridiculous back-and-forth, but it seems you want to keep it going. I wasn’t even replying to you; I replied to Derek because he said that he quit reading our exchanges and was not certain what I had argued. It is irrelevant ENTIRELY whether or not you think I’m calling God a liar over a matter of interpretation. Derek wasn’t certain whether or not I directly said that God lies, and I was simply clarifying to HIM that I didn’t.
Moreover, on that standard, you are even more guilty of calling God a liar because He flatly stated that a genuine Christian cannot practice sin whereas you say that a genuine Christian not only can but DOES practice sin. And when asked about it REPEATEDLY, you refused to answer. So, are you prepared to finally address what you’ve steadfastly avoided?
WHY DO YOU SAY THAT GENUINE CHRISTIANS PRACTICE SIN WHEN GOD SAYS THAT GENUINE CHRISTIANS CANNOT PRACTICE SIN?
2 Timothy 2
2 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
That has nothing to do with calling God a liar. He flatly stated that he would deny us if we deny Him. And the “WE” includes the Apostle Paul and his audience, which is Timothy!
We’ve been around this how many times now? We all get that you disagree with me. Are you bored and have nothing else to do in your life? Why couldn’t you be content to have the last word? I let you have a parting shot at me two times without reply, but you just can’t let it drop. Go to the carnival, get a girlfriend…DO SOMETHING with your life. Man alive.
LikeLike
May 6, 2021 at 4:32 pm
“you people are hilarious. so you believe there are “infinite universes ?””
Do you think I’m talking about the multiverse? No, I’ve mentioned MANY times on this thread what I’m talking about, and the “infinite universes” problem for God has nothing to do with the multiverse. It’s about the infinite CHOICES an all-powerful, all-knowing God would have for creating universes. Here it is once again:
If God is all knowing and all powerful, as the Bible says, then we have to acknowledge that he could have created any of an infinite variety of universes he could imagine with his infinite mind. And he had to have known before he even created this universe that if he chose to create this specific universe that sin would result, right? All that HAS to be true by definition if God is all knowing and all powerful.
Thus it has to mean this is the universe God WANTED to exist. Sin can’t be an unfortunate consequence of free will (even if we ignore all the biblical evidence that God determines everything and thus free will is only an illusion), because God could have chosen to create one of the infinite universes where Lucifer didn’t rebel and Adam and Eve didn’t disobey…universes that MUST be possible to exist if choice actually exists.
So the only rational conclusion I see is that God WANTED sin to exist, he WANTED humanity to fall, he WANTED the world to become wicked, he WANTED to drown the world in a flood, and he WANTS billions of people to end up burning in hell. It means he is the one entirely responsible for the existence of sin in our universe, and the cause of every atrocity. Right?
THAT is what I would appreciate a reasonable argument against.
“and this 1st cause had a plan because in this universe it’s mathematically impossible ALL this happened by chance —- there just isn’t enough time based on when life started on earth.”
That’s a claim no one can plausibly make. Selective pressures can change impossible odds to absolutely certain odds, and we have no idea what selective forces may influence the formation of universes. Not knowing all the selective forces involved in a process can completely invalidate the analysis. To give you an example, if you fully shuffle a deck of cards and lay them out in a row, your chance of getting a specific order is statistically almost impossible: 1 in 10 to the 68th power–or 1 followed by 68 zeros–which is roughly equal to the number of atoms in our galaxy. But if you pick up ONLY the cards that are NOT in the right order, shuffle them and place them back in the spaces where you picked them up, and then repeat this process multiple times, eventually you are GUARANTEED to get the desired order. The introduction of selective forces–in this case preserving only the desired results and recycling the wrong results–can change the success rate from essentially 0% to 100%.
Those selective forces also factor into the claim that the odds of proteins forming naturally are virtually impossible. That’s because they assume a random chance jostling of the amino acids necessary to form a protein, ignoring any potential selective forces that would arrange them correctly. Their assumption is unrealistic, since we know that so much of physics, chemistry and biology requires selective forces. For example, without gravity, hydrogen atoms have a 0% chance of turning into helium. But with enough gravity to cause that hydrogen to coalesce into a star, there is a 100% chance the hydrogen will fuse into helium. Another example: if you fill a container with hydrogen and oxygen gas, there is no chance they will form water. Add enough heat or a spark, and there is a 100% chance you will get water. Yet another example: RNA is made of nucleotides, but if you just mix a bunch of nucleotides together, the odds of getting RNA are virtually nil. However, drip those nucleotides on certain clays and there is a 100% chance they will form RNA.
All these processes require a catalyst of some sort, and it’s highly likely that the first proteins ALSO required a catalyst. We may not yet know what that was, but we have discovered that RNA can fold like proteins and may have served the same basic function until the catalyst for the more flexible and variable proteins evolved.
Finally, there is the claim that life is too complex to evolve new features. As an example, creationists will often claim that it is statistically impossible for the bacterial flagellum to evolve because if you remove any single component, the entire system would be useless, and thus evolution could not lead up to a functional system through a gradual series of useful adaptations. But then a bacterial syringe with almost all the components of a flagellum was discovered. That bacterial mechanism would likely require only a few minor evolutionary tweaks to result in a functional flagellum. Although we can’t know for certain if a bacterial syringe was indeed the ancestor of bacterial flagella, it still stands as an excellent example of how a previously unknown “preadaptation” can change the statistical odds from essentially zero to highly likely.
The lesson is that until you know the selective forces involved in the formation of an event, using any statistical analysis to declare that event impossible is meaningless. Furthermore, claiming that the results of such a flawed statistical analysis is justification for belief in an intelligent creator is nothing more than an argument from ignorance fallacy. It’s like someone who is unaware of how stars work declaring it impossible for natural forces to form elements heavier than hydrogen, and thus concluding that the only logical explanation is that God did it. We now know how fusion creates new elements through completely natural processes, so the existence of heavy elements is not evidence for a creator.
LikeLike
May 6, 2021 at 4:54 pm
“I answered that in Post 148.”
Ah, that post wasn’t addressed to me so I never read it. Sorry about that.
“It isn’t a “problem” at all. If it can be proved that God is good (and it can), then it follows that if evil is present, there is a morally justifiable reason for it—full stop, end of story.”
You’re trying to solve the problem by resorting to an assertion, which doesn’t work. I’m fully aware that the Bible says God is good:
• Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.”
But that’s not evidence God is good; it’s only a claim that needs to be verified. Being good is about BEHAVIOR, not assertions. Surely you’re familiar with the phrase, “actions speak louder than words.” So your response is really no different than claiming Hitler (please excuse the resort to Godwin’s Law) was good because someone said he was good. It doesn’t matter if Mother Teresa, Gandhi and Santa Claus were all to claim Hitler was good, the evidence must be found by looking at his behavior.
“It is irrelevant whether in an infinity of universes Universe X could be made in such a manner as to meet Derek’s approval. The presence of evil is justified whether or not we can figure out its warrant and whether or not we approve of the present one. Again, the question turns on whether a good God exists. “Evil” is a red herring.”
I respectfully disagree. If God exists and is ALL KNOWING, then by definition he could imagine any of an infinite number of universes, each with its own Earth and populated with the same people, except that they make different choices in each universe. So, for example, in one universe you could choose to walk by a homeless person, while in another universe you could choose to buy him a sandwich, and in yet another universe you could choose to call the police on him, and so on. If God has an infinite mind, then by definition he could imagine a universe where everything turns out exactly how he wants. And this option would be true even if free will exists, since he could imagine a universe where everyone just happens to use their free will to make the “right” decisions.
Furthermore, if God is ALL POWERFUL, then by definition he could CREATE that exact universe. If he wanted Lucifer to stay a model angel, he could have chosen to create one of the worlds where Lucifer decides not to rebel. If he wanted Adam and Eve to live in the Garden of Eden forever, he could have chosen to create one of the worlds where they decide not to eat the fruit, and so on. Nobody would make “wrong” decisions, regardless of whether or not they have free will.
But that’s not what happened, is it? Instead, God DELIBERATELY chose to create one of the universes where he KNEW everything would go wrong right from the beginning. He chose one where he knew Lucifer would rebel and Adam and Eve would disobey. He chose one where the world would fill up with wicked people whom he would then drown in a flood. He chose one where he would end up sending untold BILLIONS of people to burn forever in hell for transgressions as small as simply not believing he exists.
So what does all this mean? It means that God himself is ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE for the existence of evil because this is the exact universe HE chose to create. Instead of choosing to create one where everyone happens to make the right decisions, he chose one where he KNEW humanity would make the wrong choice right from the beginning, resulting in thousands of years of bloodshed, torture, rape, slavery and more. Yet he blames US for HIS choices. He has people tortured forever for doing exactly what HE decides we will do. So our universe itself is evidence that if God exists, he is a monster who wants to see massive suffering, and he clearly does not have our best interests at heart. I don’t think there is any way to escape this conclusion, not without giving up at least one of the following three claims:
1. God exists
2. God is good
3. God is all powerful
Do you agree that this is sound reasoning? And do you see how simple assertions that God is good do nothing to address the problem?
LikeLike
May 6, 2021 at 5:17 pm
“in the way i used “delusional” here on this site ……. i am using it correctly as in biblically —- the “strong delusion.””
Ah, that wasn’t clear. But how is the biblical definition significantly different? It’s still about belief in claims that contradict reality.
“yes you did contradict yourself —- if “infinite universes” can exist an “infinite being” can exist.””
I hope you realize now that you misunderstood the infinite universes problem for God.
“you ignore TR, Naz and myself which gave a biblical, logical and reasonable argument for “faith alone” as we define it.”
I’ve ignored nothing. I’ve merely pointed out biblical contradictions that can reasonably lead to disagreements.
“again, at least you are intellectually honest in your conclusion on this topic which you misinterpret to prove your false belief there is no 1st cause outside of time, space and the material.”
Who said I believe there is no first cause outside of material space-time? We have insufficient evidence for what actually caused the universe, so belief in ANY explanation is irrational, by definition. Speculating is fine, but not belief. The correct answer is “we don’t know,” and there’s nothing wrong with admitting that.
Having said that, we do have an analogous precedent that shows matter can pop in and out of existence: the quantum vacuum. We know for certain the quantum realm exists, and our universe may be the result of a quantum fluctuation of zero point energy, with the positive energy of our universe directly cancelled out by the negative energy (e.g., gravity). In other words, a universe from “nothing”–although that “nothing” would have to be the quantum realm (which can be demonstrated to exist even when you remove all matter and energy from any unit of space).
Of course, it’s fair to ask “What caused the quantum realm?” And to that the answer is “Who knows?” But you can just as reasonably ask “What caused God?” The usual answer to that is “He always existed”…but that same answer can be given for the quantum realm: “It always existed” (although, since time appears to have come into existence with the formation of our universe, the notion of “before” may not even make sense). If one insists God doesn’t have to have a cause and is the first cause, then one could make the same claim about the quantum realm. To deny that would be a “special pleading” fallacy.
But regardless, despite the precedent from quantum mechanics, the answer remains, “We don’t know.” Until we discover sufficient evidence, I’m fine with that.
LikeLike
May 6, 2021 at 11:02 pm
@Derek writes,
You never read it? Then why did you reply to it in Post 174? You’ve got memory issues, Bub.
But I wasn’t trying to make you “aware” of what the Bible says. I offered a conditional: If it can be proved that God is infinitely good (by philosophical arguments, no Bible quotations), then it follows that there must be a morally justified reason for the presence of evil. I never once in this thread or the other one offered any evidence that God is good. It is merely assumed to make a point about the consequence of that assumption.
If God isn’t good, then theism, as we define it, is false. If God is good, then evil is a red herring. And it is a red herring because God’s existence is already presupposed. So, the assumption is not that evil is justified by a good God, because that follows from the conditional. What is assumed is a good God. Thus, the question cannot turn on evil; it turns on whether God exists and whether God is good. The fact that neither you nor I may be able to figure out the whys and wherefores of every instance of evil has no bearing on God who spans infinity. You are right to call foul on an unproved assumption, but since I’ve not attempted to prove God’s existence here, you’re firing at the wrong target. If I say, “Some pigs have wings, every winged creature sings, therefore some pigs sing,” the conclusion necessarily follows the premises. We can assume the premises arguendo and say that if the premises are true, then some pigs do indeed sing. The proper rebuttal will focus on the premises, not the conclusion. Thus, so long as it is even possible—logically possible—that there is a morally sufficient reason for evil, then God and evil are not logically incompatible.
As stated previously, the problem of evil gains a lot of emotional traction, but it isn’t a logical problem at all. It is certainly the case that God could have created any number of universes that meet with your approval. It is certainly the case that He could have created a world without any kind of suffering, and such a place is indeed a Christian’s concept of heaven. But that is entirely irrelevant. The fact that He didn’t create such utopias, though that fact may evoke an intense emotional reaction, isn’t even a blip on the logical radar. IF IT CAN BE PROVED that a good God exists, then the presence of evil is morally justified whether or not we’re able to figure out its justification—full stop, end of story. Thus, the proper rebuttal always contests the arguments in favor of a good God. Citing evil is an obvious appeal to emotion.
The distinction here isn’t cut so fine as to make it difficult to follow. And this is more evidence of the futility of arguing with you. You can either see the distinction and are engaged in deliberate misdirection, or you genuinely cannot see it. In either case, it’s futile to proceed. The former is dishonest, and the latter is a waste of time since basic argumentation is foreign to you. A whole lot more could be said about your definition of “evil” and its fluidity throughout human history which of course affects the coherence of your emotional appeal to it, but I’ve already gone way beyond what I wanted to do.
LikeLike
May 7, 2021 at 12:05 pm
derkmathias …………. im not responsible for your poor judgment/lack of understanding. if you read my comments the meaning is clear as i pointed out here or previously it’s not about your/others intelligence when i say state the fact someone is “delusional.”
lol ……….. i misunderstood the “infinite universe” problem ? i disagree and it’s you that misunderstands my response.
lol ………. sure you did just like you people always do —- the whole argument is easily resolved because the vast majority of people are misunderstanding what our belief of “faith alone” “sola fide” means.
lol ……….. you: “Who said I believe there is no first cause outside of material space-time?” me: that’s the whole “is there a God” argument oh delusional one. see this is why imao people like you and scalia and leona, you always hide what you believe. if you do believe there is a first cause outside of space-time we agree i just say that’s God. just like if you believe the material world always existed fine —- then God could have always existed oh delusional one. so unless you are going to pull the typical trick, if you are true to your belief i can’t be wrong.
lol ………. wrong again ….. we have laws that state matter can’t pop in an out of existence or did i misunderstand you again ? matter can not be created or destroyed. since you play games i won’t accuse you just say —- to state “nothing” is “something” is delusional based on the definition of “nothing.” now if you want to redefine “nothing” to delude your self go a head.
lol ……… if you believe in “infinite universes” why not in different dimensions? so even if “matter can pop in and out of existence” why wouldn’t that just mean interdimensional travel ?
lol ……… but again back to the subject —- you are biased and refuse to accept the evidence there is no contradiction between faith alone and the bible telling us to be holy as we’ve shown. like all these so called contradictions they are easily harmonized unless you are a delusional wacko that wants to prove God is a liar or his righteousness will save him.
LikeLike
May 11, 2021 at 5:45 pm
“You never read it? Then why did you reply to it in Post 174?”
You’re right, I did respond to your post. My bad; I didn’t look up the reference when you mentioned it in post 343 until later. In any event, the problem is it didn’t satisfactorily address the problem I’ve posed.
“I offered a conditional: If it can be proved that God is infinitely good (by philosophical arguments, no Bible quotations), then it follows that there must be a morally justified reason for the presence of evil. I never once in this thread or the other one offered any evidence that God is good. It is merely assumed to make a point about the consequence of that assumption.”
Still not helpful. Again, it doesn’t respond to the problem I posed, it avoids it. Philosophically, I think I’ve proven beyond all reasonable doubt that God, as described in the Bible, is evil based on his behavior. I’ve provided you with the common definition of evil I’m using, so I there shouldn’t be any confusion there. I don’t think there’s any way to prove philosophically that God is good, much less infinitely good, since the same arguments can be used to “prove” he’s evil, so I’m not sure why you even bother mentioning it.
“If God isn’t good, then theism, as we define it, is false. If God is good, then evil is a red herring. And it is a red herring because God’s existence is already presupposed. So, the assumption is not that evil is justified by a good God, because that follows from the conditional. What is assumed is a good God. Thus, the question cannot turn on evil; it turns on whether God exists and whether God is good. The fact that neither you nor I may be able to figure out the whys and wherefores of every instance of evil has no bearing on God who spans infinity.”
It sounds like you’re using the “Oh Lord, oooh you are so big. So absolutely huge. Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here I can tell you” (Michael Palin) argument, which is another irrelevancy. It doesn’t matter how superpowered you presuppose God to be, we have to pass judgment based on what we KNOW, not what we don’t know.
Now what we do know is that the Bible claims God exists and that he is all powerful, all knowing and all good (unless, perhaps, you’re a Calvinist). You can’t use the claim that God uses evil to ultimately create good because of the “all powerful” characteristic. By definition, an all powerful God would not need to use evil to achieve good. Whatever lessons he might wish to impart could easily be achieved by eliminating the need for the lessons to be taught through atrocities.
And from our perspective, it’s pretty tough to justify things like babies being born in poverty-stricken regions, immediately becoming sick with disease due to unsanitary conditions, becoming malnourished because their mothers can’t produce enough milk, so they suffer for weeks, months, sometimes even years before finally dying in agony. This sort of thing happens tens of thousands of times each and every DAY, with no sign of any all-loving God helping these innocent children. He doesn’t even alleviate their suffering. That, of course, is the problem of evil, but that’s not the point of my “infinite universes” problem.
My point is that THIS is the world God evidently WANTED to exist AS IS, otherwise he would have chosen to create a different one he could imagine that had a different outcome. This is true regardless of whether free will exists. At first blush the argument sounds simplistic enough to dismiss, which is what Christians normally do…unless they think through the consequences. This is why I spelled it out for you. Your answers indicate you’re not thinking it through.
“You are right to call foul on an unproved assumption, but since I’ve not attempted to prove God’s existence here, you’re firing at the wrong target.”
I don’t call foul on that because I said “IF” God exists. In other words, I’m granting that assertion for the sake of the argument. What I’m not granting is that IF he exists he is good in any way that has meaning for us. There are characters in the Bible who CLAIM he is good, but actions speak louder than words. Good and evil are determined by behavior, not assertion, and throughout the Bible God commits or condones nearly all the behaviors WE consider to be indicative of evil.
“Thus, so long as it is even possible—logically possible—that there is a morally sufficient reason for evil, then God and evil are not logically incompatible.”
That argument WOULD work if God were not defined as all powerful. Because it means BY DEFINITION he could accomplish the same goals WITHOUT resorting to atrocities and other behaviors we consider abhorrent.
“It is certainly the case that He could have created a world without any kind of suffering, and such a place is indeed a Christian’s concept of heaven. But that is entirely irrelevant.”
No, that’s the WHOLE POINT that needs to be addressed. I’m not saying God SHOULD have created a world free from suffering, I’m saying that the evidence of a world rife with evil and misery is incompatible with a God claimed to be both all powerful and all good. If the Bible said God is all powerful but callous, uncaring or even an asshole, then there wouldn’t be a problem, because an uncaring, all powerful God could reasonably create this world. If the Bible said God is all good and powerful enough to create a universe but nowhere near powerful enough to control how things turn out, that too would not be a problem, since a limited God could reasonably create this world. It’s when you throw all three God claims in the mix that the world does not make sense. If I were a believer, I would absolutely need an answer for that. Then again, I’m not the sort who can let faith override logic.
“And this is more evidence of the futility of arguing with you. You can either see the distinction and are engaged in deliberate misdirection, or you genuinely cannot see it.”
Actually, it’s you who keeps missing the point. From my perspective there’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support my argument. What I’m interested in is understanding how believers such as yourself process those facts, whether you do have a reasonable argument or whether you’re just responding to cognitive dissonance.
“A whole lot more could be said about your definition of “evil” and its fluidity throughout human history which of course affects the coherence of your emotional appeal to it, but I’ve already gone way beyond what I wanted to do.”
This isn’t an emotional appeal. You seem to think I’m arguing the problem of evil, when I’m arguing logical consistency. And of course “evil” is a fluid term. Even Christians don’t really consider morality absolute, or they would still believe in slavery, treat women as property, abolish divorce, abolish representative art, etc., and they excuse in God behavior that would not be tolerated in other humans, despite humans having being limited and God not.
LikeLike
May 12, 2021 at 10:20 am
I’m way too busy at the present to adequately address this. I will only say in passing that you cannot legitimately grant something only to take it away after granting it. I may have time tonight to give a full reply, but this weekend is a more realistic timeframe.
LikeLike
May 12, 2021 at 11:16 am
poor derekmathias ……….. your sides silly arguments does not destroy our sides facts a 1st cause outside of space, time and the material has to exist.
even delusional scalia can see this.
the real question which neither of you has answered is ………why can’t you see scalia’s belief the Holy Spirit can indwell a believer committing willful sin for an unspecified amount of time before leaving makes him delusional too ?
lol ………….. that’s because —– if you believe the Holy Spirit can indwell a believer willful sinning for any amount of time you have to be delusional to say my position is wrong. scalia is doing what you, Leona and many others
do —– proving he has a closed mind to anything proving him wrong and that’s why he’s the person he says apologetics won’t work on.
LikeLike
May 12, 2021 at 5:45 pm
“im not responsible for your poor judgment/lack of understanding. if you read my comments the meaning is clear as i pointed out here or previously it’s not about your/others intelligence when i say state the fact someone is “delusional.””
That’s an assertion. I am a reasonably intelligent person and I can follow the logic of an argument. So far you haven’t presented anything that actually addresses the issue.
“i misunderstood the “infinite universe” problem ? i disagree and it’s you that misunderstands my response.”
Yes, you DID misunderstand it. I’m not at all claiming I BELIEVE in infinite universes (we have insufficient evidence to justify that belief), and my argument doesn’t depend on their existence at all. That’s a complete red herring on your part. Let me walk you through it in a way that’s perhaps more clear:
What I’m saying is that IF God is all-knowing, then BY DEFINITION he can imagine all possible universes that he COULD create if he wanted to–and that MUST include imagining ALL possible outcomes of this universe. Most importantly, if choice actually exists, then God MUST be able to imagine a universe where everyone happens to make all the choices he wants. It can’t be that difficult to do, since we are capable of imagining a universe where everything turns out the way we would like it to.
Furthermore, if God is all-powerful, then BY DEFINITION he could create the universe that he can imagine where everyone happens to make the “right” choices. Yet THIS is the universe he created, the one where everything supposedly goes wrong right from the beginning. He could have chosen to create a world where Lucifer decides not to rebel, or one where Lucifer doesn’t exist at all. Or he could have chosen to create a world where Adam and Eve decide not to eat the fruit, or simply not put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden with them and the serpent. If YOU can imagine such a world, surely GOD can.
Thus, God is ENTIRELY responsible for ALL evil, regardless of whether or not we have free will. Yet he blames US for HIS choices.
Notice that NONE of that argument even implies that I believe in multiple universes, merely that God is capable of IMAGINING and CREATING any universe he wants.
NOW do you see the problem?
“the whole argument is easily resolved because the vast majority of people are misunderstanding what our belief of “faith alone” “sola fide” means.”
This argument also has NOTHING to do with faith. It’s irrelevant to the problem. God could imagine a universe where everyone happens to believe in him through faith alone–that’s what I mean by saying he could imagine a universe where everyone happens to make the “right” decisions.
You see…it’s not me who is confused, apparently it’s you.
“you: “Who said I believe there is no first cause outside of material space-time?” me: that’s the whole “is there a God” argument oh delusional one. see this is why imao people like you and scalia and leona, you always hide what you believe. if you do believe there is a first cause outside of space-time we agree i just say that’s God. just like if you believe the material world always existed fine —- then God could have always existed oh delusional one. so unless you are going to pull the typical trick, if you are true to your belief i can’t be wrong.”
I guess you don’t understand the concept of “I don’t know.” If I were to ask you exactly how much money I have in my bank account, what would you say? Would you BELIEVE I have exactly $5.43 or $5.674 million? If so, that would be foolish to believe such a thing because you would almost certainly be wrong. Even if I gave you just two choices, it would be foolish to BELIEVE in either one, since you simply don’t know. Thus, the only rational answer is “I don’t know.” Right?
So when you imply I have to choose to believe in either, say, God or a fluctuating quantum realm, you’re simply making a false assumption. I certainly believe that between those two options, the quantum option sounds much more probable…but the fact is I DO NOT KNOW, and thus I do not have any rational justification for belief for actually believing in either option. After all, what if we live as, say, artificial intelligences in a simulated world created by beings in a universe where NEITHER the God or quantum options is the correct explanation? Believing in either of those two options to explain our universe would then be flat out wrong.
Belief is justified when there is clear EVIDENCE to support it. Granted, some people are gullible and believe any old thing people tell them, but that’s not me, nor is it any of the hundreds of millions of skeptics in the world who can’t believe in something without credible evidence.
I DON’T KNOW what caused the universe. Until we have better evidence, I’m content with that answer–and so should you and everyone else in the world. To quote Daniel Boorstin, “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” Or as Eoin Colfer said, “Confidence is ignorance. If you’re feeling cocky, it’s because there’s something you don’t know.”
“wrong again ….. we have laws that state matter can’t pop in an out of existence or did i misunderstand you again ? matter can not be created or destroyed. since you play games i won’t accuse you just say —- to state “nothing” is “something” is delusional based on the definition of “nothing.” now if you want to redefine “nothing” to delude your self go a head.”
Have you never taken a physics class that covers the basics of quantum mechanics? Yes, virtual particles are CONSTANTLY popping in and out of existence: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/. If that were a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, then God creating matter would ALSO be a violation of the 1st LoT.
“if you believe in “infinite universes” why not in different dimensions? so even if “matter can pop in and out of existence” why wouldn’t that just mean interdimensional travel ?”
Again, I don’t BELIEVE in infinite universes and the concept is irrelevant to my argument.
“but again back to the subject —- you are biased and refuse to accept the evidence there is no contradiction between faith alone and the bible telling us to be holy as we’ve shown. like all these so called contradictions they are easily harmonized unless you are a delusional wacko that wants to prove God is a liar or his righteousness will save him.”
I’ve made NO SUCH CLAIM about whether I accept or don’t accept your interpretation of faith vs. faith+works. All I’ve done is point out that there are thousands of different Christian denominations, all of which disagree with other denominations, often on dogma critical to Christianity–such as the faith vs. faith+works argument you’ve been having with Scalia ad infinitum. I take NO POSITION on which is true because I don’t have any credible reason to believe the Bible is true or that salvation exists.
So if anyone should be LOLing here, it should be me…since you consistently keep ascribing false claim about me and continue to be unable to grasp the point of my argument. This has NOTHING to do with faith vs. works, nor actual infinite universes, nor the first cause argument. Those are all distractions from the actual argument.
LikeLike
May 12, 2021 at 5:51 pm
“I’m way too busy at the present to adequately address this. I will only say in passing that you cannot legitimately grant something only to take it away after granting it. I may have time tonight to give a full reply, but this weekend is a more realistic timeframe.”
Take your time. I’m WAY behind on responses on dozens of threads, both on this blog and on various other sites.
But I’m surprised you don’t think someone can legitimately grant something only to take it away. Pretty much EVERY parent ends up doing that at some point or another…such as letting a child play on Mom’s phone, until the child orders $5,000 worth of stuff on Amazon and causes the parent to revoke phone privileges; or letting a teenager drive the family car, until the teen gets a dozen speeding tickets and causes the parent to revoke driving privileges; and so on. And don’t Christians frequently use the parent-child relationship analogy for God and humans?
LikeLike
May 12, 2021 at 5:55 pm
derekmathias ………… lol —- intelligence has nothing to do with the correct accusations im making against you, scalia and Leona here and in other posts.
lol ……… only a delusional fool/reprobate mind could not see there is no contradiction here. all you have to do is use our correct definition of faith alone/sola fide=a true/saving faith unites you to Christ and as a result you are saved. but just like you wackos always do you ignore the facts to protect your delusion.
lol ………. you do the same thing on the other topics you get wrong. a 1st cause as we define it —- is not only logical it’s reasonable. and the claim this all happened by chance is the delusional position. but just like your silly argument for abortion you fixate on the pregnant woman being killed but ignore the command to kill the whore. so if you want to argue the bible allows abortion so should we that would mean we have to perform the abortion by stoning the mother and burning her body.
LikeLike
May 22, 2021 at 9:54 pm
Several posts will follow the initial one due to the length of my argument.
@Derek
Again, sorry for the delay, but I’ve been buried under an avalanche of work, and just when I think that I’ve got some time, I get buried under another avalanche. Anyway, first things first: Given that you offered an unmitigated acknowledgement of your error, I’ll briefly explore engaging you in actual debate. In all honesty, I expected a salty answer or some sort of justification, so that’s at least a positive sign.
Let me begin by reminding you that I’m not offering a biblical argument, so your repeated references to the Bible are non-starters. We may eventually get to the Bible, but none of your comments relating to it are relevant to any of my claims.
Now, I offered a conditional argument, akin to the following proposition:
If a good God exists, then there is a morally justifiable reason for the existence of evil.
A good God exists.
Therefore, there is a morally justifiable reason for the existence of evil.
This is a straightforward example of modus ponens that answers the objection that God and evil are logically incompatible. There are two ways to attack my argument: (a) Dispute the conditional (“If God exists”) or (b) show that, as a matter of logic, it is impossible (not improbable or unlikely) for God and evil to co-exist. You assert that I avoided the problem that you posed, but that cannot be true. If a good God exists, then it follows that there has to be a justified reason for evil. It is then reasonable for me to claim that in order to defeat the argument, I am under the burden of proof to prove the existence of a good God. Full stop.
You came back with a “I don’t think there’s any way to prove philosophically that God is good, much less infinitely good, since the same arguments can be used to ‘prove’ he’s evil, so I’m not sure why you even bother mentioning it.” Now, that doesn’t make any sense. I wouldn’t make the claim unless I believed that I could back it up. And your reply, as with the previous debate over what the Thomistic arguments were with respect to the existence of God, shows that you don’t have a clue what that argument is. It is the very longstanding, standard Christian argument for God’s goodness and leads inescapably to that conclusion if the premises are true. You are not only ignorant of that argument, the fact that you don’t think such an argument can be successful is entirely irrelevant. As with my “pigs singing” example, the conclusion follows the premises. Even if I could not prove that “some pigs have wings” or that “all winged creatures sing,” the conclusion that “some pigs sing” necessarily follows. If the conclusion follows, then the strategy is not to deny the conclusion; it is to deny the premises. Thus, if God actually exists, then there has to be an adequate explanation for evil, regardless how powerful God is, how many evils you document, or how hard you stomp your feet that you can’t figure out what it is.
On the other hand, you can claim that the very proposition “A good God and evil can co-exist,” expresses a logically impossible state of affairs. In other words, you are saying that:
Situation x is impossible.
Now, what would I need to do to defeat that claim? For one, I could point to an actual instance of the type of situation in the claim, and that would certainly prove the claim to be false, but in logic, one doesn’t have to find an actual x. All I would need is a possible x to defeat the claim. If one can conceive of any state of affairs without said state being logically inverse, then said state qualifies as being possible. So, if the claim is that “situation x is impossible,” the claim that “situation x is possible” is logically the opposite of the former, and if such a situation can be conceived without contradiction, it defeats the claim.
The logical problem of evil insists that God and evil cannot co-exist, so the only thing a believer needs to do is offer a logical circumstance where God and evil co-exist. And because this is a logical problem, said circumstance doesn’t need to be actual or realistic. One doesn’t need to offer a scintilla of evidence to support the actual existence of said circumstance. All that is needed is to provide a logically consistent description of a way that God and evil can co-exist.
Your support for the claim that “situation x is impossible” is practically identical to what Epicurus said long ago:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
LikeLike
May 22, 2021 at 9:55 pm
Of course, assumptions are being made about what God could and should do to the effect that God could not be good if He did not address evil the way a critic says He should. What follows are four scenarios which address that objection, but keep in mind that God’s omnipotence does not and never has meant that God can do what is logically impossible. There are many, many things that God cannot do which has no bearing on His omnipotence (e.g. He cannot die or commit suicide).
World 1:
A) God creates persons with morally significant free will.
B) God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong.
C) There is evil and suffering in World 1.
World 2:
A) God does not create persons with morally significant free will.
B) God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong.
C) There is no evil or suffering in World 2.
World 3:
A) God creates persons with morally significant free will.
B) God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong.
C) There is no evil or suffering in World 3.
World 4:
A) God creates persons with morally significant free will.
B) God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong.
C) There is no evil or suffering in the World 4.
Now, logically speaking, which of these worlds are possible? How about World 1 (W1)? Assuming God exists, that appears to describe the world we’re living in. People are not predetermined to choose good or evil, so the choices are clearly theirs to make. If God caused them to always choose the good, then no moral evil could exist. Thus, W1 is obviously possible.
World 2 (W2) is a deterministic world wherein God, again assuming He exists, causes people to always choose what is morally acceptable. And that of course fits W2’s description: No person is made with a morally significant free will. No “choice” a person makes is made freely. People are thus human robots functioning in accordance with a preset program. As a computer is considered “good” in the sense that it turns on the sprinkler system at preset intervals throughout the day, so humans are “good” in the sense that they properly process a program. But since we wouldn’t describe the computer as morally good, we would not describe such people as morally good either, for robots can only function as they are programmed. Nonetheless, W2 is also clearly possible.
What about World 3 (W3)? The assertion that people have morally significant free will but causally determined to always choose good is directly contradictory. People in this world could not do anything bad even if they wanted to. Thus, they have no free will. The freedom to do evil is built into the definition of “morally significant free will.” If you wanted to murder somebody or steal your neighbor’s bicycle, you would be prevented by cosmic forces from ever accomplishing that. Indeed, even thinking those things would be bad in itself, so the cosmic forces which prevent your actually committing murder or theft would prevent you from thinking bad things. Thus, being determined to always act a certain way is directly at odds with the freedom to choose whether to do right or wrong (which is what it means to be morally significant). If you are free to do X, then God does not cause you to do or refrain from doing X. And if God causes you to do or refrain from doing X, then it follows that you are not free. Consequently, W3 is impossible.
Finally, what about World 4 (W4)? As a matter of logical possibility, W4 most certainly is possible. Though there is no moral evil or suffering in this world, it is not due to God causing it to be so if people were made with a morally significant free will. The “goodness” results in the free choices of the people who inhabit this world. One may object that this is not possible, but that objection is based on our knowledge of human nature and has nothing to do with logical possibility. Recall that anything is logically possible if it can be conceived without logical contradiction (A ≠ ~A). Since there is nothing logically contradictory about the conception of a possible world where free persons always choose what is right, W4 is certainly possible. Again, given our knowledge of human nature, such a world is highly improbable, but what is improbable is not impossible, and since this is a purely logical exercise, W4 cannot be foreclosed.
LikeLike
May 22, 2021 at 9:56 pm
The similarity between W1 and W4 is obvious. The people who inhabit both worlds have free will, thus their moral choices are not causally determined by God. The only difference is, of course, that people choose evil at least some of the time in W1 whereas they never do so in W4. The bottom line: Whether there is evil in either of these worlds depends on the choices of the people therein, not God. So, if God creates a world inhabited by people, He can create one with human robots who never make wrong choices, or He can make beings who could, in acting freely, at least sometimes choose to do wrong. Thus, the creation of persons with free will logically explains the moral evil that exists in this world. W2, though possible, is a robotic world; W3 is flatly impossible; and W4, though possible, is certainly not the world we live in. Consequently, in order to have world with creatures who could freely love and freely exercise their will in a morally significant manner, evil must be possible.
Now, you ask how an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, who knew beforehand that not only insignificant evil would occur, but that moral monstrosities would plague humankind for millennia, could possibly be justified in creating such a world. Former atheist C. S. Lewis addressed that very question:
And of course, Plantinga (who, among others, defends the free will argument) concurs:
Now, in reply to this argument, atheist J. L. Mackie had this to say:
In other words, he acknowledges that as a matter of logic, the above argument is defensible. Thus, a good God and evil can co-exist. And atheist William L. Rowe stated:
This is one of the main reasons that the so-called logical problem of evil is considered a dead issue. And that is why in our previous debate, I never denied that a virtual world is a logical impossibility. Since there is nothing inherently contradictory in there being a virtual world (even though there are rationally performative inconsistencies), and even though you admitted that you had no proof of the same, it is certainly possible as a matter of logic that we are bit players in a massive computer program and nothing more. It is thus not a matter of logic whether a good God could create a world where evil could occur, even on a massive scale. The question is always whether a good God exists.
Now, you write,
After trying to goad me into debating you from thread to thread and from post to post, you produce this kind of tripe? Either you know good and well that’s not what I’ve been arguing, or you’re not intelligent or competent enough to tie your shoes in philosophical dialog. What I’ve written here is nothing new. And one of the sub-reasons I’ve taken so long to reply is that I knew I’d have to post something this long to even touch the peripheral of the discussion. I’ve debated atheists for a lot of years, and the vast majority of them have no problem understanding that if a good God exists, then there has to be a morally sufficient reason for evil. They never wasted their time trying to prove the logical impossibility of God’s existence. They have consistently questioned whether any of the arguments proving God actually accomplish that. I didn’t think that I had to post a mini War and Peace to get that point across. If you were familiar with the literature, you would have seen what Mackie and Rowe recognized long ago—that the so-called “logical problem” doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
May 22, 2021 at 10:01 pm
If you want to continue debating me, then I suggest that you excise that kind of bovine excrement from your arguments. If you don’t, then kindly quit trying to debate me. It’ll fall on deaf ears.
I close with a well-known quote from C. S. Lewis:
LikeLike
May 24, 2021 at 2:26 pm
“your sides silly arguments does not destroy our sides facts a 1st cause outside of space, time and the material has to exist.
even delusional scalia can see this.”
That’s a common claim from people who haven’t studied cosmology and quantum physics, but you won’t find many physicists who would agree that that is necessarily so. We simply don’t know whether material spacetime exists beyond the realm of our local universe, and we don’t even know if there is just our local universe or if there is an infinite number of universes. There may have been a first cause and there may have not been (nonexistence itself may be an impossible state), but there’s no evidence that any first cause would be anything more than a quantum field. And a quantum realm may be “eternal” in the same way theists mean when they say God is eternal.
Speculation is fine, but those who claim to KNOW that God (or the multiverse) exists are not making rationally justified claims. It’s why religion is so divisive. That reminds me of this:
“Religion. It’s given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.” — Jon Stewart
“if you believe the Holy Spirit can indwell a believer willful sinning for any amount of time you have to be delusional to say my position is wrong. scalia is doing what you, Leona and many others
do —– proving he has a closed mind to anything proving him wrong and that’s why he’s the person he says apologetics won’t work on.”
I don’t know why you ascribe such beliefs to me. I’ve never claimed to believe the Holy Spirit even exists, much less whether it can leave you or not. I know that the Bible says multiple times that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin (although Christians fight over the meaning of “blasphemy,” too). It does stand to reason, though, that if that passage is true, you can lose the Holy Spirit if you mock it. (Again, though, I’m not saying I believe that is a true passage, nor even that the Holy Spirit exists.)
LikeLike
May 24, 2021 at 5:13 pm
Okay, Scalia, I appreciate the time and effort you put into your long answer…but you STILL don’t seem to understand my point. I’m going to assume the fault lies with my explanation and so I’ll try a somewhat different approach:
First off, I think you’re hung up on the problem of evil. Forget that for now; this is primarily about fault, not evil per se. So here we go:
Almost every Christian agrees that God is both all knowing and all powerful, and that he exists outside of time and space. Because of this, he knows EVERYTHING about what is going to happen in this universe from start to end. Christians claim free will exists, yet this clearly doesn’t prevent God from knowing exactly how everything in our universe will turn out. So far so good?
Furthermore, given these characteristics we can also conclude that God knew the entire history of our universe BEFORE he even created it, right? After all, that’s what it means to be all knowing.
Additionally, we know it’s possible to imagine essentially an infinite variety of other universes, simply because we often imagine new universes, both in fiction and in nonfiction. Presumably, God can do the same. But being that God “knows everything” (1 John 3:20), that “his understanding is infinite” (Psalm 147:5) and that he has “perfect knowledge” (Job 37:16), he can not only imagine an INFINITE number of universes, but he can also know their ENTIRE histories–just like he knows the entire history of our universe, past, present and future. All this makes sense, right?
So could God have imagined a universe where Lucifer didn’t rebel, where Adam and Eve didn’t disobey, where the whole world didn’t become wicked and need drowning, etc.? Well, since WE can imagine it, the answer must clearly be yes.
Now if God had chosen to create one of THOSE universes, could free will still exist? Of course–after all, if it’s possible for individuals to make free will choices, then there MUST be the possibility for the existence of a universe where different choices are made. So even before God created our universe, he had knowledge of all the infinite possible universes and all their histories, all with beings possessing free will but simply choosing different results.
And if God is all powerful, then he could have created any one of those versions of our universe where people happened to make the “right” choices. But he didn’t. He imagined and then chose to create THIS version of our universe, the one where everything goes wrong right from the beginning. This was HIS choice even though he KNEW what would happen. So regardless of whether we have free will, God chose to create the universe where humanity made the choices it has, thus making HIM entirely at fault for sin and everything else that went wrong. Yet he blames US for his decisions.
I don’t know how to put it more plainly. If an engineer imagines a device he KNOWS will fail to operate as intended, and then he creates that device and gets all upset when it fails…who is really at fault, the device or the engineer? (Again, this is more about who is at FAULT for this universe, not whether there is justification for evil.)
Now you also argue that God is good and therefore there is moral justification for evil:
“If a good God exists, then there is a morally justifiable reason for the existence of evil.
A good God exists.
Therefore, there is a morally justifiable reason for the existence of evil.”
Since THIS particular argument is about whether God is good, you need to provide evidence for that claim. But instead you just ASSERT it, despite all the evidence to the contrary (e.g., God deliberately creating Lucifer KNOWING he would rebel, deliberately putting Adam and Eve in the garden with the tree and the serpent KNOWING they would fail his test, deliberately letting the world fill with people KNOWING they would become wicked and that he would drown them, and deliberately creating the vast majority of humanity KNOWING they would not follow him and thus end up burning in hell for all eternity, etc.). So I would thus reword your assertion to make more sense:
“If an evil God exists, then there is a justifiable reason for the existence of evil. An evil God exists. Therefore, there is a justifiable reason for the existence of evil.”
And at least I could back that up with a mountain of evidence from God’s own actions in the Bible and in the real world. I don’t know of any biblical evidence that God is good, apart from mere assertions by a variety of characters. It’s God’s ACTIONS that matter, not the assertions of others.
And we don’t judge whether a person’s seemingly evil behavior is actually not evil based on the mere assertion that the person is good. When we have evidence of evil behavior, THAT is what must be judged. You can’t simply claim “Oh, because God is good, there MUST be good reason for him letting babies and little children die long, slow, painful deaths.” Goodness must be DEMONSTRATED in order to justify seemingly evil behavior that actually isn’t.
Then you quote C.S. Lewis:
“Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata—of creatures that worked like machines—would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other…. And for that they must be free.”
Again, here the existence of free will is ASSERTED, not demonstrated. Lewis also claims that machines without free will would hardly be worth creating, which is another assertion that also needs to be demonstrated. This is ESPECIALLY true considering how the Bible contains so many passages that cannot be actually true if free will exists.
Claims that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
There is the real possibility (even probability) that we don’t actually possess free will, that we only have the PERCEPTION of free will. And if that’s the case, we evidently have no problem experiencing happiness and love. Why should God care whether free will exists or not if there is no demonstrable difference between someone with free will and someone without?
And one final note: If God doesn’t want us to behave in certain ways, then why not make them physically or psychologically impossible or at least extremely difficult? For instance, it’s impossible for someone to gnaw his own elbows off, and it’s utterly revolting to most people to imagine torturing their own family members to death. We don’t NEED morality to prevent those behaviors, we just need sufficient AVERSION.
So if God wanted us to have the free will to choose to follow and love him, we could still have that ability even if it were physically or psychologically almost impossible to murder, torture, philander, rape, rob, etc. It would be as easy for an all-powerful God to do that, just as he made us almost incapable of torturing our families to death. But instead he created us with the OPPOSITE inclinations–such as feeling and possibly acting on desire for an attractive person, rather than feeling completely non-sexual about them until AFTER marriage.
To me it sounds like you have a predisposition–God exists and he is all good–and EVERYTHING you argue is an attempt to prove those points, rather than look at the EVIDENCE first and come up with conclusions based on that.
LikeLike
May 24, 2021 at 6:01 pm
derekmathias ………….. lmao —– it’s the facts based on those that studied scientific laws.
lol ………. your arguments are completely delusional based on the silly position the creation account in genesis doesn’t make sense therefore there can not be a God or 1st cause. the bible is not a science book but it has some excellent scientific facts —- excellent source to tell you what’s safe to eat from the sea. the bible is not a history book but it has some excellent historic facts. etc……..
lol ………. you make a greater error by trying to use the bible to prove God doesn’t exist. only some one as out to lunch as you would do that because that is impossible —– you can only use the bible to prove the God of the bible is a false god and that’s impossible because of the way the bible is written.
lol ……….. but both you are your delusional buddy scalia both make the same mistake —– there is no contradiction here ………. a true/saving faith unites you to Christ which saves you and as a result produces law keeping and salutary acts/good works.
LikeLike
May 25, 2021 at 12:12 am
@Derek, you write:
My argument from the very beginning has focused on the logical problem of evil. Specifically, whether the proposition that God and evil can co-exist is a logical impossibility. And that specific argument has always been based on the conditional “if God is good.” If you really thought that I was “hung up” on an issue you’re not addressing, you could have easily said, “Look, Scalia, I’m not saying that God and evil are incompatible as a matter of logic. I’m saying that God must be evil given His foreknowledge and omnipotence because He is directly responsible for creating the kind of world where evil would flourish.” However, that’s merely another way of saying the same thing. Since it’s a given that we’re discussing the theistic God, it follows that the world He created has and will have everything He knew it would have prior to creating it. And given His foreknowledge and omnipotence, He must then be “culpable” (meaning, at fault or evil) for creating this world. Consequently, a good God and evil cannot logically co-exist. It doesn’t look like I missed a thing.
One doesn’t need to imagine an infinite variety of universes because W1-W4 consider the logical possibilities available to an infinitely good God. W4 is indeed logically possible because it asserts no direct contradiction, but it is impossible for God to guarantee that every person who has ever lived will always choose the good without tipping the scales. Thus, true moral freedom will always entail the possibility of evil. Recall that no theist has ever asserted that God can do what is either logically or existentially impossible.
I add this to follow what I just wrote because you’re making me wonder whether you read my posts as closely as you’d like me to read yours. I directly addressed that. Again, W4 is a logically possible world, but it could never be guaranteed because a guarantee would entail design (which is of course intrinsic in creation). Looking at it another way, the fact that something is logically possible does not mean that it is actually possible. The 100 monkeys (or just one monkey) typing over infinity eventually churning out War and Peace is a classic example. As a matter of logic, we have to say that it is possible because the proposition does not entail a direct contradiction, but we know that such an event is actually impossible. If a monkey at random hit all the right keys and spaces to produce that kind of work, we’d know that something was fishy. Thus, W4, though logically possible, is not actually possible. And we “know” that it’s not possible because, in accordance with the argument, God created people with free will and they chose evil much of the time. As I said, if you’re free to do X, then God does not cause you to do or refrain from doing X. And if God causes you to do or refrain from doing X, then it follows that you are not free. There is thus no other world where the conditions would be different if freedom were truly guaranteed. The only way you could get a different outcome is to determine the outcome.
Of course the engineer is at fault because his device doesn’t have free will. If he knew that the device would fail, it could only fail because he designed it with that intent. He thus bears full responsibility. But if he designed the failure to demonstrate his new rapid recovery system which would avert full system failure, then the deliberate operational flaw appears justified. And this is precisely why the logical objection fails because so long as it is even possible that there is a morally justifiable reason for the alleged “failure,” then said failure cannot count against either God’s existence or His goodness.
In reply to my modus ponens you write:
And after being repeatedly told that I’m not making a biblical argument, you continue to fold in the Bible to make your point. And after being repeatedly told that the appropriate way to challenge the argument is to challenge the conditional (that a good God exists), and after being repeatedly told that I’ve yet to offer such an argument, you wag your finger at me for not proving the conditional. Now, I’d be happy to offer my argument, but if you can’t see what other atheists clearly see that God (the omniscient and omnipotent one) and evil can co-exist (that the concept is not logically impossible), then it’s pointless to launch into another argument.
Recall again that you offered an unproved virtual world on the basis of logical possibility. You freely stated multiple times that you had no proof that such a world exists, but you also insisted that such a world is a real possibility. I never challenged that point. I never said that such a world is logically impossible. The burden of proof for the argument that “situation X expresses a logically impossible state of affairs,” is too great for anybody to bear. The fact that it can be conceived without contradiction makes it possible by definition. This is not about theism and atheism. It’s standard logic. Consequently, because it is logically possible for God to have a morally justifiable reason for permitting evil in the world, the argument that “God and evil are logically incompatible” fails.
Derek, I’m not certain that you understand the difference between incompatibility and inductive formulations in logic. There is a difference between something being logically impossible and evidentially impossible. Like your virtual world, it is certainly logically possible, but by your own admission, there is no evidence for it. And what is it that atheists like to say? “Assertions offered without evidence may be dismissed without evidence,” and I would affirm that with a hearty, “Amen!” With respect to free will, it is certainly possible that people have free will, and since it is a genuine logical possibility, that’s all that’s needed for the argument to work. Thus, as Mackie admitted, the so-called problem of evil does not assail the logical consistency of theism. If a good God exists, then there is a moral justification for evil. A good God exists. Therefore, there is a moral justification for evil. It is thus up to that argument’s proponent to prove the conditional (that a good God exists, and by extension, that humans have free will).
LikeLike
May 25, 2021 at 12:12 am
As to whether free will is better than being a robot, Lewis is not arguing that said concept is logically inescapable. He is basing it on personal happiness and fulfillment. And that is derived partly from our experience with choice. Though choice may be an illusion, it is certainly a powerful one. By appearances at least, I choose to buy a Ford or a Chevy (or both). I choose chocolate ice cream or rainbow sherbet. I choose Mary to be my wife (and she chooses me) as opposed to Judy. The legal/ethical systems are based on human choices (those incapable of exercising choice are not held to the same standard as those who are). Coerced actions are mitigating factors in rendering judgment. We thus consider it better that a woman chooses to love us instead of her being coerced to do so. It is better to choose one’s meal rather than it being dictated to us, etc. God could have made robots to praise Him, but is that a world worth having? W2 is certainly logically possible, but the way I’m wired, it is wholly unsatisfying. Moreover, if we are purely determined, then all of our actions, ALL OF THEM, are morally irrelevant. Your desire to rape is no different than a rooster in heat. And if you’ve ever watched roosters in action, our doing the same thing to a woman would land us in jail. Killing, stealing, slavery, and deceit are hallmarks of the animal kingdom. If humans are simply higher-order animals driven by the absence of any free will, then nothing is immoral. Moral culpability comes with human choice. Without choice, there is no culpability for ought implies can.
It isn’t immoral for a lion to kill the offspring of a rival. It isn’t immoral for ants to make slaves of other ants. It isn’t immoral for animals to “steal” from other animals. It isn’t immoral for animals to drive out members of its own pack or herd for whatever reason. It’s simply the way nature is. Thus, nothing “moral” attaches to anything we do. We are simply expressing our cosmic preferences, and the only “right” is “might.”
And that’s been answered. I can program my computer to say, “I love you,” but that’s meaningless to me because the computer is only doing what it’s programmed to do. I could someday create a droid in the form of a beautiful woman who will cook, clean, compliment and have sex with me anytime I want, but that wouldn’t be genuine love because “she” never chose to be with me. It is thus very easy for me to both see the difference and to prefer choice over compulsion.
Uh, no. You raised the moral arguments, and I simply replied with what has been known in the philosophical community for a very long time. There is no logical problem between God and evil. I’ve repeatedly stated that IF it can be proved that a good God exists, then there MUST be a justifiable reason for His permitting evil. Full stop. End of story. I also repeatedly stated that the onus is on me to prove a good God, so it’s most curious that you missed that. And this is one of the many reasons I find it a waste of time to debate you. All you could have said was, “Yes, there is no logical incompatibility between God and evil, but the heavy burden you bear is to prove not only that God exists, but that God is good.” But that’s not what you’ve done. You continue to argue that God and evil are incompatible because God is morally culpable (thus evil) in allowing evil to occur. On the one hand, you claim that’s beside the point you’re making, but on the other hand, that is exactly the point you’re making with different words.
Now, I’m tired of writing super long posts to make simple points. I don’t think that much more can be added to the debate. So, unless you come back with something rationally significant, I’m happy to give you the last word. As I stated, the arguments I’ve made here are recognized by atheists (as quoted above) as logically consistent. They, therefore, do not argue that God’s creation of the world where evil would flourish is a logically impossible state of affairs. They rather make inductive arguments that hope to establish the assertion that the proliferation of evil makes it highly unlikely that God exists. That’s a very different argument. But if you still insist otherwise, then you should perhaps debate them, not me.
LikeLike
May 27, 2021 at 3:16 pm
“all you have to do is use our correct definition of faith alone/sola fide=a true/saving faith unites you to Christ and as a result you are saved. but just like you wackos always do you ignore the facts to protect your delusion.”
First, why is it you keep claiming I believe in one biblical interpretation over another? This seems to be an obsession with you. Can you not grasp that I don’t believe ANY supernatural claim in the Bible is true? Can you not grasp that your arguments with Scalia are no different to me than the arguments between Shiites and Sunnis, or Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses? You’re all selecting which passages you want to believe and how you want to interpret them, and you’re quick to dismiss and interpret away the inconvenient passages.
Second, I’m the one basing his beliefs on what can be demonstrated with credible evidence, and you’re the one who believes in talking snakes, people living inside whales, a flood that wiped out all humanity, eternal torture (or things along those lines). Yet I’M the whacko. Hmm, project much?
“a 1st cause as we define it —- is not only logical it’s reasonable. and the claim this all happened by chance is the delusional position.”
How is it reasonable to believe in a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, timeless, spaceless, eternal, unchanging being…who gets very upset with what people do with their genitals? If you step back and look at the claim objectively, it does sound rather silly. To the nonbeliever, God just sounds like a convenient invention to soothe fear of the unknown with a comforting patch, instead of doing the hard work of researching cosmology and basing belief on evidence (with the axiom that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). We don’t know the cause of the universe, and EVERY cause we’ve discovered so far has turned out to be natural. We don’t even have any credible evidence that the supernatural exists, so why not reserve belief for when we DO have evidence? Otherwise, considering the THOUSANDS of religions out there, ALL based on faith rather than evidence, the odds that you’ve picked the right horse are vanishingly small.
“but just like your silly argument for abortion you fixate on the pregnant woman being killed but ignore the command to kill the whore. so if you want to argue the bible allows abortion so should we that would mean we have to perform the abortion by stoning the mother and burning her body.”
Way to miss the point again. The point was that the ONLY reference in the Bible that relates to abortion is in SUPPORT of it, in its use as a test for infidelity. The fact that the fetus is aborted is evidently unimportant. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say abortion is wrong.
But what I really wanted to know from you was whether you had any response to my “infinite worlds” problem for God, and evidently you don’t. You could have simply said so and saved a lot of verbiage.
LikeLike
May 27, 2021 at 7:36 pm
LOL ………. wrong again —– you keep using the bible to disprove the bible therefore your interpretation matters.
LikeLike
May 27, 2021 at 7:41 pm
LOL ………… i have to break up mu comments or they won’t post for some reason.
LOL ……….. you haven’t made 1 credible argument yet. TR, Naz and myself have proven a true/saving faith saves. neither you or cre cre scalia have disproven anything we’ve said —– and even if the guy banging his step-mother isn’t OS that doesn’t disprove a person dying indwelt by the Holy Spirit isn’t AS
LikeLike
May 27, 2021 at 7:47 pm
LOL ………… again oh delusional one —– you are playing the lying retard game just like you did with abortion. i didn’t miss your point you missed THE point. you can’t say in the bible God allows for abortion so therefore He must always allow abortion. God gives very strict rules when abortion would be allowed and when it would not. you do what all you reprobates do —– ignore all of the biblical facts and say see this proves God is okay with abortion or see this proves there’s a contradiction in faith alone or Scientific Laws (ie. matter can not be created or destroyed) aren’t evidence ……. nothing is something —– lmao …….. that’s a delusional argument not a credible argument.
LikeLike
June 2, 2021 at 4:55 pm
“W4 is indeed logically possible because it asserts no direct contradiction, but it is impossible for God to guarantee that every person who has ever lived will always choose the good without tipping the scales. Thus, true moral freedom will always entail the possibility of evil. Recall that no theist has ever asserted that God can do what is either logically or existentially impossible.”
Scalia, you’re smart enough to understand my point, yet you seem to be purposefully avoiding understanding it. Is this a case of cognitive dissonance? I don’t think I can simplify this any further, although I’ll try:
For starters, it is NOT impossible for an all-knowing, all-powerful God to guarantee that every person who has ever lived will always choose the good without tipping the scales…because there aren’t any “scales” to tip. That analogy is the problem with your claim. You seem to think that God just created the world, knowing some people would behave and others wouldn’t, and that he couldn’t exercise control over this behavior without violating free will.
But that scenario IS NOT POSSIBLE given an all-knowing God. Omniscience means that deciding to create the world is an infinite MULTIPLE CHOICE option right from the beginning. He couldn’t have started with imagining one world and then modifying it as he saw fit, he HAD TO have started with ALL possible worlds and ALL the results in each of those worlds in his mind. That’s what omniscience means. The ONLY escape from this conclusion is that God isn’t actually omniscient–which is fine if you want to go there, but not many Christians do, from my experience.
Okay, so God had ALL those worlds in his mind and he decided to create ONE world (well, if he’s all powerful, then he could create ALL those worlds, but there’s no biblical evidence for this). With all that infinite array of worlds he could create in his mind, THIS is the one he chose to create, the one where he KNEW everything would go wrong. Did he randomly select THIS particular world to create? No, that too would be impossible for an omniscient God–he would know which one he would pick. He COULD have chosen to create a world WITH free will where everyone happens to make the right choices. That world HAD to be one of the infinite worlds in his imagination…because if not, then it would make it utterly impossible for humanity to make all the right choices (but since WE can imagine such a world, we must presume God can imagine it too).
All this means that by definition God is ENTIRELY to blame for choosing THIS world to create: the disaster world where the vast majority of humanity fails his standards. You keep insisting you’re not making a biblical argument, but I AM. I’m the one who brought up this “infinite universes problem for God,” remember? I’m the one asking for an answer to the problem that doesn’t end up with God being evil.
Attempts to just unilaterally claim God is good and therefore his apparent evil clearly must result in a greater good means nothing to a nonbeliever. It’s really no different than someone unilaterally claiming Hitler was good and therefore his apparent evil must result in a greater good. Worse, an omniscient and omnipotent God by definition would NEVER have to resort to committing or condoning atrocities to result in a greater good because he could ALWAYS arrange for that greater good WITHOUT atrocities. Can you really not see why such arguments are unconvincing?
Adding to the problem is that the notion of free will is NOT biblical, not if the following passages are true (I’ve provided this list to you before, so I’ll just include a few):
• Proverbs 16:4 THE LORD WORKS OUT EVERYTHING to its proper end—even the wicked for the day of disaster. [Note that it doesn’t say he just determines SOME things, he determines “EVERYTHING,” including what the wicked do.]
• Proverbs 16:9 In their hearts humans plan their course, but THE LORD ESTABLISHES THEIR STEPS. [God even determines our very steps!]
• Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its EVERY DECISION IS FROM THE LORD.
• Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but IT IS THE LORD’S PURPOSE THAT PREVAILS.
• Proverbs 20:24 A PERSON’S STEPS ARE DIRECTED BY THE LORD. HOW THEN CAN ANYONE UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN WAY?
You keep dismissing this evidence as not meaning what it clearly says. If God works out everything, every decision, even our very steps, then there is no free will to do otherwise. And thus, of the four worlds you postulate, Worlds 1, 3 and 4 cannot exist, according to the Bible. Only World 2 can be true, although line C must be reworded to say “There is evil and suffering in World 2.”
“World 2:
A) God does not create persons with morally significant free will.
B) God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong.
C) There is no evil or suffering in World 2.”
“Looking at it another way, the fact that something is logically possible does not mean that it is actually possible. The 100 monkeys (or just one monkey) typing over infinity eventually churning out War and Peace is a classic example. As a matter of logic, we have to say that it is possible because the proposition does not entail a direct contradiction, but we know that such an event is actually impossible. If a monkey at random hit all the right keys and spaces to produce that kind of work, we’d know that something was fishy. Thus, W4, though logically possible, is not actually possible.”
If an omnipotent God exists, then he could create an infinite number of monkeys typing on typewriters. And I think you misunderstand the infinite monkeys claim, which is that you WOULD eventually end up with War and Peace. Unless you assign an unassailable stop (like requiring them to change the paper themselves, or requiring them to write the novel within 60 minutes, etc.), an infinite number of typing monkeys would eventually knock out War and Peace, guaranteed. After all, you can grasp that even just 100 monkeys typing away would eventually spell the first word of War and Peace (“Well”), right? Perhaps even the second word (“Prince”). An INFINITE number of monkeys would eventually produce the words of EVERY novel.
“And we “know” that it’s not possible because, in accordance with the argument, God created people with free will and they chose evil much of the time. As I said, if you’re free to do X, then God does not cause you to do or refrain from doing X. And if God causes you to do or refrain from doing X, then it follows that you are not free.”
Here you go again, ASSERTING that God created people with free will without SUPPORTING that claim. I use the above scripture to show that free will is not biblical. If you’re saying the Bible is wrong, THAT would solve the problem. But you haven’t suggested this.
“Now, I’d be happy to offer my argument, but if you can’t see what other atheists clearly see that God (the omniscient and omnipotent one) and evil can co-exist (that the concept is not logically impossible), then it’s pointless to launch into another argument.”
It doesn’t matter what other atheists see. I came up with the infinite universes problem for God, which specifically NEGATES the arguments supporting how evil could exist with an omnipotent, omniscient, GOOD God. THAT is the part you continue to avoid. I think you know my argument is solid and that most Christians will resort to claiming God works in mysterious ways, rather than dispense with one of the following claims:
1. God exists
2. God is good
3. God is all powerful
Again, I don’t think there’s any escape from this problem. Nobody here has been able to refute it, at least. Naz bowed out, and you and Paul studiously avoid refuting the ACTUAL argument I’ve painstakingly laid out again and again.
“Recall again that you offered an unproved virtual world on the basis of logical possibility. You freely stated multiple times that you had no proof that such a world exists, but you also insisted that such a world is a real possibility.”
First, you seem to be making the same mistake Paul made: claiming I said multiple universes EXIST. I do not make that claim. What I said is that BY DEFINITION an omniscient God could IMAGINE a world where everyone happens to use their free will to behave (since WE can imagine such a world, God must be able to as well), and BY DEFINITION an omnipotent God could create such a world.
If your ultimate argument is going to be “God works in mysterious ways,” just say so. It’ll save a lot of time.
LikeLike
June 2, 2021 at 5:43 pm
derekmathias …………. lmao —- i didn’t avoid your argument ….your argument is idiotic. you are the one that suffers from “cognitive dissonance.”
LOL …………… what you said here is just plain stupid “First, you seem to be making the same mistake Paul made: claiming I said multiple universes EXIST. I do not make that claim. What I said is that BY DEFINITION an omniscient God could IMAGINE a world where everyone happens to use their free will to behave (since WE can imagine such a world, God must be able to as well), and BY DEFINITION an omnipotent God could create such a world.”
irrelevant what you said that’s where your argument goes —– multiple universes. which as I correctly said is not an argument at all. we do have free will. God can imagine ???? if we can He can too …. so what that doesn’t mean He did or has to create them.
LOL ……….. see this is why ILMAO at people like you —- nothing is something/ can God do anything ? can He make a rock so heavy He can’t lift, make a square circle ? those arguments are idiotic and as I said you just keep playing the lying retard game avoiding your NOT our big problem —– nothing is nothing and our scientific laws NOT suggestions say this material world can not exist unless something/some one not bound by space, time and matter was the 1st cause.
LikeLike
June 2, 2021 at 11:05 pm
@Derek
I was content to give you the last word, but since you asked a couple of questions in your last post, I assume you want to keep it going. However, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, you’re not going to make yourself any clearer. And no matter how many times you assert that I don’t understand your argument, my previous encapsulations demonstrate that I understand you perfectly well.
And since we’re repeating ourselves, we’re discussing the theistic God which means that He is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. The present world is one He created with full knowledge of everything that would occur in this world and He created it deliberately. The entire history of argument with respect to the Problem of Evil has proceeded with that understanding. You seem to be ignorant of that history since you think that everybody prior to your arriving on the scene was arguing along other lines.
The salient point whether discussing this world or any other possible world is whether an infinitely good God creating a world with the kind of evil mankind has witnessed in this one is a logical possibility. Historically, key philosophers have denied that whereas the consensus now affirms it. For the reasons I stated above, the logical possibility argument is a dead issue. Only a spattering of die-hard atheists refuse to let it go since they find it impossible to let anything go that might signal that they’re wasting their time on useless arguments.
You write,
Why you choose to keep repeating yourself when it is clear that I understood you is beyond comprehension. W4 clearly fits this picture, so since it was offered, it both demonstrates that you’ve been understood and that its possibility has been addressed. First, as a matter of logical possibility, I clearly stated that such a world is possible. Second, the fact that God created W1 instead is justified if there is a morally justifiable reason for creating W1. And since it is logically possible for there to be such a reason, even if we cannot decipher what that reason is, then the proposition that W1 presents a logically impossible state of affairs fails. Third, though W4 is logically possible, it is actually impossible given human nature. You turn language on its head when you posit free will with human nature and think that it’ll be any different in a “different” world. What is it about this different world that’ll change human nature or free will? Is the oxygen different? Are there 10 planets instead of 8 which exert some sort of influence on human deportment? The constitution of such a world is actually irrelevant given free will. There is no scenario you can offer that would change the dynamics of human nature and free will. So, given our experience with this world, we know that wherever human beings are, if they have free will, they will choose evil.
Against my 100 monkeys or 1 monkey typing the novel War and Peace, you write:
Well, no, it isn’t guaranteed. You’re confusing possibility with necessity. As a mathematical, hence, logical, possibility, it certainly could occur, but nothing logically forces a particular sequence. The probability that randomly generated text over infinity will produce a particular text is 1 (hence, your “guarantee”). Nonetheless, that does not imply that said text’s absence is impossible. Moreover, I didn’t offer an “infinite” number of monkeys; I offered 100 or 1. As probability mathematicians have observed, if there were as many monkeys as atoms in the universe typing extremely quickly for trillions of times the life of the universe, the probability of monkeys replicating a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably small:
That is not to say, however, that it is mathematically impossible. It simply illustrates the actual impossibility of such a thing occurring. And this also illustrates the limits of mathematical abstracts and real-world experience. People often conflate the two which of course leads them to make incorrect assumptions about reality (e.g. Zeno’s paradox). You can never have an infinite number of monkeys (only potentially so), and since you can always add another second, day, month, year, etc. (so long as things exist), time can only be potentially infinite, not actually so. So, my original contention that a monkey producing War and Peace over infinity is logically possible but actually impossible appears solid.
Back to the subject: And though W4 is logically possible, it isn’t actually possible. If God created this world to be populated by human beings with meaningful free will with respect to evil, then we know that there is no alternate world where free humans never choose evil. The conditions of such a world would have to change to somehow affect man’s choices, and if that occurs, then man is no longer free (or one would have to equivocate on what it is to be free).
This is really getting tedious. How many times do I have to say that I’m obligated to support that claim? Who in the world are you to bellyache about my alleged ignorance of your argument when you appear to be skimming my posts at best? I freely acknowledge that I am obligated to eventually defend free will, so what part of that is hard for you to understand? At this stage of the argument, I have only to defend it as a logical possibility, and in that regard I have succeeded. There is no inherent logical contradiction with the concept of free will (as with square circles) so it counts as a purely logical proposition. Since a good God is a logical possibility and since human free will is also a logical possibility, if both exist (and they can, logically speaking), then there must be morally justifiable reason for the existence of evil. Your screaming that I’ve yet to prove the conditional shows you’re the one who’s not paying attention.
As to the Bible, if you want to talk past me, then you shouldn’t have requested my participation. I have not foreclosed a subsequent biblical discussion, but at this stage, it’s pointless for me to dive into that when you’re incapable of seeing the difference between logical possibility and inductive formulations. At best, you can only hope to prove that the God of the Bible either does not exist or must be evil. But since I haven’t been arguing whether the Bible is correct, it’s irrelevant to anything I’ve said. Everybody here knows your “biblical” objections because you’ve cut-and-pasted them ad nauseam. You’re not offering anything that anybody who’s following this dialog hasn’t read multiple times. So, even if you’ve proved your biblical case, it does nothing to touch the logical argument.
Well, these “other atheists” are much smarter than you, Derek. A little epistemological humility would go a long way toward getting you to see what others on your side of the fence have seen for a long time. God cannot do what is either logically or existentially impossible for Him to do. He cannot create humans with meaningful free will while coercing them to think and do only good things. The words “coerce” and “free” cancel each other, so that scenario does not qualify as a possible world (thus, W3 cannot exist). Your “infinite universes” turns out to be no problem at all.
In reply to my observation that you at one time were able to see the difference between logical/actual possibility and had offered a virtual world hypothesis (without evidence), you write:
Your reading comprehension is suffering along with your memory retention. I never said a sweet thing about your arguing multiple universes with respect to a virtual world. Last time I checked, the word “world” is singular and your former argument was tied to our being bit players in a massive computer program. I clearly stated that you affirmed that you had no evidence of a virtual world, so how you’re able to draw the conclusion that I’ve concluded that you’re arguing for the existence of multiple universes can only be understood in the Twilight Zone.
Now, Derek, please don’t waste your time and mine by insisting that I don’t understand you. Unlike you, once I agree to debate, I pay strict attention to my interlocutor’s arguments and do my dead-level-best to properly represent them. You have even commended me for accurately diagnosing your arguments both here an in another thread. I know exactly what you’re saying and have encapsulated it several times. I know good and well that God is both omniscient and omnipotent and that He knew exactly everything that would occur on this planet from eternity past. So, there’s no need for you to attempt to explain it “one more time” for posterity. Your argument simply fails because it either asserts an impossible state of affairs (is logically contradictory) or though logically possible, is not actually possible given our knowledge of human nature.
LikeLike
June 3, 2021 at 6:57 am
I’m just wondering how we could keep monkeys typing that long without giving them bananas ?
🙂
Naz
LikeLike
June 3, 2021 at 7:56 am
@Naz. True of course. That’s one of the problems with conflating the abstract with the real. An actual infinite, though logically possible, is actually unattainable. And it of course assumes that the monkeys will vary their character pressing. It is perfectly possible that a monkey will type fjfjfjfjffj eternally without variation in which case nothing remotely close to War and Peace or even one page thereof will be produced.
LikeLike
June 3, 2021 at 1:08 pm
@Derek
My post neglected to address the following tidbit:
It of course means everything to anybody interested in a logical argument. If Adolf Hitler exists, and if Adolf Hitler is infinitely good, then it follows that the presence of evil is morally justified. Adolf Hitler exists and Adolf Hitler is infinitely good, therefore, the presence of evil is morally justified. So, the conclusion of this argument follows as naturally as any other valid modus ponens. It is up to the claimant to then demonstrate the truth of the conditionals. It is invalid to question the conclusion because it follows the premises (as in the pigs singing argument). However, since nobody claims that Hitler is/was infinitely good, your citing him is disanalogous. Also, since Hitler was a mortal man, it was impossible for him to be an “infinite” anything, let alone infinitely good. Hence, if Hitler was indeed mortal, the argument is manifestly unsound.
Your apparent inability to discern the difference between a logical/actual possibility is most curious. I’ve really tried to figure that out, especially since you relied on pure possibility in the last debate. Regardless the evidence or lack thereof, if something is logically possible, competing claims cannot, by definition, rule out its possibility. The only thing logically impossible is a direct contradiction, and since there is no direct contradiction between an infinitely good God and the presence of evil (due to the possibility of there being moral justification for the latter), then it follows that God cannot be “morally guilty” of a justified act. So, as I’ve repeated many times now, the only way to defeat the argument is to question the premises. Your refusal to acknowledge what is clearly a logical possibility is almost bizarre, unless you’re solely motivated by a desire to save face by perpetuating a bad argument. Your attempt to resuscitate the logical problem of evil, if that is indeed what you’re doing, is misguided since you still cannot understand the principle of logical possibility. Your time would be better spent questioning the premises.
LikeLike
June 8, 2021 at 2:54 pm
“I was content to give you the last word, but since you asked a couple of questions in your last post, I assume you want to keep it going.”
In case you haven’t noticed, sometimes I take a week or more to respond. I’m not necessarily done, I’m just busy.
“However, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, you’re not going to make yourself any clearer. And no matter how many times you assert that I don’t understand your argument, my previous encapsulations demonstrate that I understand you perfectly well.”
No, I’m sorry, Scalia, but your responses reveal you really don’t get it. I’m honestly baffled why you’re still having such trouble grasping these points. I’ve recently been presenting this infinite worlds problem for God to quite a few former Christians (including two biblical scholars and a former pastor), and pretty much all of them have grasped it and immediately understood why it’s such a problem for Christianity. But every Christian I’ve presented it to has either just walked away (like Naz) or avoided the issue through irrelevant word salad (like you and Paul). So at this point I have to assume this is indeed a case of cognitive dissonance, either a deliberate or unconscious inability to address the point because to understand it would generate too much internal conflict. However, I will address a few points you made:
“W4 clearly fits this picture, so since it was offered, it both demonstrates that you’ve been understood and that its possibility has been addressed.”
No, it doesn’t. Here’s your W4:
A) God creates persons with morally significant free will.
B) God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong.
C) There is no evil or suffering in the World 4.
W4 fails as a possible option because of both A and B, since we’re talking about the God of the Bible here (if you’re not talking about this god, then you lost my whole point long ago), and the Bible is clear about God determining everything–not just some things…”EVERYTHING.” “Every decision is from the Lord.” “It is not for [people] to direct their steps.” And so on.
“the fact that God created W1 instead is justified if there is a morally justifiable reason for creating W1.”
First, that’s not a fact, it’s just a belief that stands on biblically shaky ground, since W1 fails for the exact same reason as W4.
Second, since evil is the deliberate and unnecessary cause of suffering or harm, and God is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, then he could have created W2 and avoided deliberately causing unnecessary suffering or harm. After all, what possibly morally justifiable reason is there for deliberately giving people free will, knowing it will cause the eternal suffering for TENS OF BILLIONS of people throughout history? Just so a paltry few might worship you forever? And then he hides himself so well that literally THOUSANDS of religions develop, causing his “one true” religion to be essentially indistinguishable from any other religion? What kind of monster would do that, when it’s guaranteed to result in massive atrocities? As long as we have the PERCEPTION of free will, what use is ACTUAL free will if it will lead to so much horrific suffering? Would a good God who is ALSO all powerful do that? I’m sorry but that’s just not plausible.
“though W4 is logically possible, it is actually impossible given human nature.”
NO. I’m sorry but you are simply wrong here. If we just ignore the biblical claims against the existence of free will for the sake of argument, human nature does NOT render W4 impossible. THIS is the very heart of the problem that you have been unable or unwilling to recognize. So let’s try this one more time…
The Bible stresses the importance of making the right CHOICES (even if God is the one making those decisions for us). And if there is choice–regardless of whether free will exists–then it must be POSSIBLE to select between multiple options. And God, being all knowing, would have known ALL those options before he even created the universe. None of that is logically impossible, and in fact it’s supported by the Bible (not to mention the fact that WE can easily imagine those options).
And this is the part where you keep losing the thread: If God knew EVERY option every person could choose throughout history (all knowing, remember?), then BY DEFINITION he could imagine a world where all the “right” decisions are made. (Now keep in mind that at this point God hasn’t yet created the universe; he just knows ALL possible outcomes, EVEN THOSE where every decision is a free-will decision, because otherwise he would not be all knowing.) And then comes the big moment: God choosing to actually create the universe. He has this infinite variety of universes to choose from in his infinite mind. But does he choose to create a free-will universe where everyone happens to make the “right” decisions? Nope. He COULD have, but instead he chose to create one of those worlds where he KNEW almost everyone would end up making the wrong decisions, resulting in massive suffering throughout history and billions of people burning in hell for all eternity. And since deliberately and unnecessarily causing suffering or harm in hell is the very definition of evil behavior, this world is incompatible with creation by a good God–there can be no NECESSARY atrocities if he is all powerful, by definition.
So you see, EVEN IF free will exists, as you seem to think, there is no escaping the conclusion that God DOES causally determine EVERY situation. Thus, step B in your scenarios W1 and W4 is fundamentally wrong UNLESS you dispense with the notion that God is all powerful/knowing. That would mean the Bible contains falsehoods (although at least you could preserve your notion that God is good). THIS is the serious problem for Christianity I’m talking about. If you STILL can’t grasp it, well, I suggest you read the above bold paragraph until you do.
“Well, no, it isn’t guaranteed. You’re confusing possibility with necessity.”
It’s not just a possibility, it’s a certainty. If there is ANY possibility at all, it’s a certainty.
“As probability mathematicians have observed, if there were as many monkeys as atoms in the universe typing extremely quickly for trillions of times the life of the universe, the probability of monkeys replicating a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably small”
Ah, don’t think I didn’t notice you drastically changed the conditions of the scenario! The hypothetical scenario you mentioned doesn’t last only “trillions of times the life of the universe,” but an INFINITE amount of time (specifically you said, “The 100 monkeys (or just one monkey) typing over infinity eventually churning out War and Peace”). Even a quintillion quintillion quintillion times the life of the universe would be INSIGNIFICANTLY short compared to infinity. Which is why if there is ANY chance at all for War and Peace to be randomly typed out, then it’s GUARANTEED to happen. (Hmm, and you accuse ME of dishonesty…)
“I freely acknowledge that I am obligated to eventually defend free will, so what part of that is hard for you to understand? At this stage of the argument, I have only to defend it as a logical possibility, and in that regard I have succeeded.”
But that’s the thing…you HAVEN’T defended it as a logical possibility specifically because you keep ignoring or don’t understand the infinite universes problem.
“Well, these “other atheists” are much smarter than you, Derek.”
Sure, and Newton was smarter than me, but he still (wrongly) believed in alchemy. You’re trying to make an argument from authority, which is a fallacy. People aren’t right because they’re authority figures; people are right because the evidence support their claims.
“God cannot do what is either logically or existentially impossible for Him to do. He cannot create humans with meaningful free will while coercing them to think and do only good things.”
See, this is why I know you haven’t understood the argument. The infinite universes problem does NOT claim God can’t create humans with meaningful free will and still get the desired outcome. What it says is that God would KNOW all possible free will outcomes, and he could have chosen to create one of the outcomes where people happen to use their free will to make the right choices. There’s no coercion to “think and do only good things” at all, only God choosing which of his infinite outcomes to create.
Although I formulated the IU problem for God to show that the free will argument doesn’t work even if free will exists, it also serves to show how God is 100% responsible for EVERY human action (both good and bad). So the problem of evil is hardly a “dead issue.” It remains the biggest problem for Christianity.
LikeLike
June 8, 2021 at 3:33 pm
“If Adolf Hitler exists, and if Adolf Hitler is infinitely good, then it follows that the presence of evil is morally justified. Adolf Hitler exists and Adolf Hitler is infinitely good, therefore, the presence of evil is morally justified. So, the conclusion of this argument follows as naturally as any other valid modus ponens. It is up to the claimant to then demonstrate the truth of the conditionals.”
Wow, way to miss the point again, Scalia. That was an ANALOGY, not an equivalency! And I would think that if you have no problem imagining an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being who gets extremely upset about what people do with their genitals (and which you can’t demonstrate the truth of the conditionals, only the assertions), then you shouldn’t have any problem imagining some people believing Hitler was infinitely good (although I never said “infinitely good,” merely “good”).
Analogies are, by their nature, imperfect. They’re used to highlight similarities–in this case to show that assertions about God being good, despite his apparent evil behavior in the Bible, are analogous to assertions about Hitler being good, despite his apparent evil in history books. To a non-believer, the differences are mainly a matter of degree (Hitler had neither the power nor any apparent inclination to drown the world or torture billions of people for all eternity, after all). So your unsupported assertions are meaningless.
LikeLike
June 8, 2021 at 7:25 pm
derekmathias …………… lol —– yes analogies are imperfect but like yours they can also be idiotic.
lol ………. free will oh delusional one —- if we don’t have free will why would a God create us. do you want a wife the doesn’t love you but does what you want because they have to ? i wouldn’t. like all of the delusional wackos you ignore God’s solution —– He will destroy the Hitler’s and repair His people and rule and reign over a perfect world.
lol ………. neither you nor scalia have proved your point or destroyed our argument. just like there’s no contradiction here you ignore the biblical evidence this world is all screwed up because we NOT God erred and God will fix it at the appointed time when the tares will be bundled and burnt and His children will behave as we should because He will rule and reign with a “rod of iron.”
LikeLike
June 9, 2021 at 12:49 am
@Derek, you write:
Yes, I’ve noticed, so no need to point that out. I’m quite busy myself.
And what follows this quotation is essentially the same thing you’ve been saying over and over and over. And I’ll say again that no matter how many times you repeat yourself, you won’t make yourself any clearer than the first time you wrote along these lines. You somehow think that mere repetition is able to patch the logical holes in your argument. And when those holes are pointed out, you accuse me of “cognitive dissonance.” As shall be shown, that statement is a projection.
In reply to W4 being a representation of the possible world that God could have imagined prior to creation, you write:
First, “WE” are NOT talking about the Bible. I’ve made it clear since I began responding to you that I am making a purely logical argument sans the Bible. I even quasi-conceded the point arguendo in order to get you to focus solely on the logical argument. It would be easy enough for you to extract a promise from me to later address the biblical argument after settling the logical matter, or to claim “victory” since I won’t at this point address biblical teaching. However, your insistence to continue to argue from a biblical standpoint and even confusing that insistence with something that I somehow agree with is beyond bizarre. Second, your argument that W4 fails due to A & B being incompatible with biblical determinism is a straw man because my argument is conditioned on there being free will. Third, even if the Bible contradicts W4, W4 does not “fail” as a logical possibility since there is no inherent contradiction therein. So, given that W4 is clearly a logical possibility, and given the fact that that’s exactly what you’ve been arguing (that God could have created a world where humans freely choose to do the right thing 100% of the time), and given that you know that I’m arguing from a purely logical standpoint, your counter makes no sense at all.
Now, you stated in Post 374 the following:
This makes it abundantly clear that your infinite world scenario focused on a possible world created by God where every human both has free will and makes the right choices.
And you wrote way back in Post 131:
And this demonstrates that determinism is not the sine qua non of your argument. By your lights, free will is entirely compatible with your approach.
Moreover, in Post 366, you add:
So, let’s bring this all together, shall we? Of the infinite options available to God “prior” to creation, God could “imagine” a possible world inhabited by humans who would always make morally correct decisions. God could have determined morally correct choices, but since free will also works as a logical possibility, it does not detract from the point you’re making (that God chose another world where gross evil would occur, thus making Him morally culpable or blameworthy for said evil). In light of this let’s look again at W4:
A) God creates persons with morally significant free will.
B) God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong.
C) There is no evil or suffering in the World 4.
As anybody conversant in English can see, W4 is a possible world inhabited by humans who will always make morally correct decisions. And as anybody can equally see, I’ve repeatedly affirmed that God is omniscient and omnipotent. I can repeat that God knew in advance of creation every possibility and chose W1 over any other option. There is thus nothing that you have argued that I have not fully understood and engaged. For you to now reject W4 on biblical determinism is jaw-droppingly bizarre, and you accuse ME of cognitive dissonance?? So, since it is clear that I fully understand your argument and have engaged it, you’re either forgetting what you argued here or you’re in damage control mode and are attempting to reframe it to perpetuate this myth that I cannot connect your dots. If the former, you need to take a few brands out of the fire so you can better focus. If the latter, then you’re being dishonest. I really hope it’s the former.
You go on by first quoting me:
Recall that you’re assuming God’s existence arguendo to demonstrate that He is evil, and you use W1 to illustrate the point. So, when I say “fact,” I’m conditioning it on your argumentative grant. In other words, we’re agreeing to facts for argumentative purposes only. Why this has to be explained to you is beyond comprehension.
Moreover, since I am again not offering a biblical argument, you’re speaking to the wind. Even if my argument fails on biblical grounds, you’ve not touched it on logical grounds, so your rejoinder is irrelevant. You go on:
This has been addressed multiple times now, so you’re either forgetting what I wrote or you again think that repeating yourself compensates for your lack of engagement. First, since you’ve driven your stake in part on determinism, there is nothing immoral in your possible world. Since all decisions are determined, there cannot be any kind of moral culpability in your universe. There is no such thing as a moral monster or an “atrocity” in your worldview. In our extremely insignificant segment of the universe, molecules bounce off one another just like everywhere else. We have nothing but cause and effect, and since you ascribe nothing immoral to animal theft, deception, “murder,” or “slavery,” what makes humans any different?
The fact that we’re “rational” is irrelevant since free will is an illusion. A rapist has to rape women and dictators have to kill dissidents because they’re driven by forces beyond their control. Indeed, there is no personal control, only cause-and-effect. You are thus bereft of a platform upon which to base a moral objection. And if you assume non-existent morality just to make a point that God, who is supposed to be infinitely good, is really evil, then the assumption must be universal in order to be relevant. Everything you object to has been endorsed by your fellow humans throughout history. They consider it the survival of the fittest and that might makes right. Who are you to then decide what is or isn’t moral? Your private fancies do not translate into a universal standard upon which to make an evaluation. In order to save your objection from incoherence, you have to insist that there is a universal standard independent of your personal preferences under which all rational creatures are subject. And if you concede such a standard, then it follows that its existence, even for sake of argument, is not incompatible with the evil that is condemned by it, else no condemnation can be made.
Second, since you’re into repeating yourself, the fact that you cannot think of a morally justifiable reason for creating W1 is irrelevant to the point that so long as it’s logically possible for there to be such a reason, your objection fails on logical grounds. I’ve already shown why all propositions are logically possible, except those which cancel each other (e.g. square circles or married bachelors). Concepts which cancel each other in the same respect are not possible, but everything else is. Since there is nothing inherently contradictory between a good God deliberately creating a world where evil would proliferate, so long as there is a morally justifiable reason for doing so, it qualifies as a logically possible state of affairs. And since it is a logically possible state of affairs, any counter to the previous paragraph which insists that there is logical incompatibility between the two fails. And despite repeated attempts to get you to show that you have even a modicum of understanding of the distinction between logical and actual possibility, you’re still failing on all counts. That’s more of a conundrum than God and evil co-existing.
Now, more of your quoting me and replying:
You claim here that I am “simply wrong,” while knowing all the while that I am not making a biblical argument. Thus, every claim you’re making from the Bible here is again irrelevant. I can again concede the point for sake of moving the discussion along because it has nothing to do with what I posted.
And absent your biblical claims, your insistence that I’m wrong is bereft of support. W4 asserts freedom of the will in a morally meaningful way. Concomitant with “imagining” human conduct along moral lines includes imagining human conduct along immoral lines. You cannot guarantee freedom without the possibility of both, else freedom is just another word for coercion. If you create a world with genuine free will, you can hope or imagine that everybody does the right thing, and as a matter of logic, it is certainly possible, but true liberty will always entail the possibility that evil will occur. Now, if W1 is our world (and for the umpteenth time, I KNOW that I’ll have to eventually defend that), then we know that human beings, once given the option, will eventually choose evil. Human beings are fallible and weak, so another logical world, if it does not change human nature or exert some sort of causal influence toward the good, humans will continue to act as they always have. Thus, W4, though logically possible, is not actually possible.
You then claim that I “keep losing the thread,” and follow that up with extended bolded text that merely substantively repeats what you’ve said multiple times. As the above illustrates, I’ve misunderstood nothing you’ve argued.
Now, back to monkeys and typewriters. You write:
You really, REALLY need to learn the difference between possibility and actuality. The only way to actually guarantee every possible textual outcome is to force specific sequential variation across all keys. Given that there are 26 letters in our alphabet, a forced sequential variation over an infinite amount of time will definitely guarantee every possible textual variant, but that is not a monkey typing at random. Yes, as a matter of logic, one monkey striking keys at random infinitely can produce War and Peace, but it is also logically possible that the same monkey will type fjfjfjfjfj eternally and never produce anything intelligible. And since the latter is as possible as the former, then there can be no guarantee of a specific textual outcome other than what the monkey is already typing.
Boy, nothing gets by Derek! Here I thought I could slip that by you, but they don’t call you Hawkeye Mathias for nothing! But seriously, since I already stated that some specific text would be guaranteed, my quotation merely served to illustrate that true sequential variation wouldn’t get us anywhere close to the goal over trillions of years. And when you factor the pure randomness of monkeys, nothing will guarantee that they will strike all of the keys, and even if they do, it is possible that they’ll do so in the same manner as fjfjfjfj (e.g. asdfghjklqwertyuiopzxcvbnm) over and over again to infinity). So, even with complete variable key sequencing over trillions of years, you wouldn’t get the desired text, and with true randomness, it is equally possible you’d never get even one sentence of intelligible text over infinity. Thus, it is NOT guaranteed that War and Peace will be produced.
Now this is just plain silly. Of course I’ve defended it—repeatedly. After all this time, you still don’t know what a logically possible proposition is. Once again? Here we go:
a. Some pigs have wings.
b. All winged creatures sing.
c. All pigs are creatures.
d. Therefore, some pigs sing.
This is a valid, logically deductive argument. Thus the conclusion follows the premises. That is, the conclusion is true if the premises are true, so the conclusion cannot be contested unless the premises are contested. Statement ‘a’ is false because no evidence has been provided that some pigs have wings. Nonetheless, it is logically possible that some pigs have wings, for logical possibility is not dependent on actual existence. So long a something can be conceived without contradiction, it qualifies as a logical proposition. Thus, the fact that there are no actual pigs with wings does not detract from the legitimacy of ‘a’ being logically possible. The same goes for ‘b’ even though it has yet to be proved. Likewise, since free will does not entail a contradiction (as you’ve been told), it too is logically possible. Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you really incapable of seeing that? As a claimant that “some pigs sing” must defend ‘a’ and ‘b,’ so I must also defend free will. How many times must that be said? But if you are unable to understand the difference between a logical proposition and an existential proof, then there’s no ground for continuing the dialog.
Bad logical slip-up, Derek. I wasn’t arguing from authority at all. I’m showing that the dispute isn’t a theist/atheist one. These guys are on your team, so you cannot ascribe the difference to a biased worldview. They argue against the existence of God as passionately as you, but they know what you don’t know—the difference between a purely logical argument and inductive formulations.
Finally, if you really think that I’m guilty of cognitive dissonance, then please quit replying to me. I’ve clearly shown that I fully understand your argument, so it’s a waste of your time and ours to keep repeating yourself. The logical problem of evil is in the trash bin of history. You need to catch up to your cohorts because they’re leaving you in the dust.
LikeLike
June 9, 2021 at 9:45 pm
@Derek,
With respect to Hitler, you write:
How is it that I have a problem imagining a good Hitler when I constructed an argument to that effect? The text you quote contains that very argument, and it was offered to show that regardless the subject, the conclusion follows. It is thus up to the claimant to prove the conditional. There is nothing wrong with the “logic” of the argument; the problem lies in the truth of the conditional. I’ve been arguing that repeatedly which you apparently still cannot see.
It will of course be helpful to recall what you originally said:
Attempts to just unilaterally claim God is good and therefore his apparent evil clearly must result in a greater good means nothing to a nonbeliever. It’s really no different than someone unilaterally claiming Hitler was good and therefore his apparent evil must result in a greater good.
This is not a case of an imperfect analogy; it is disanalogous entirely precisely because God is supposed to be infinitely good whereas Hitler is nowhere close to that. If there is an infinite good, then the evil which it allows must, as a logical consequence, be morally justified. There no analogous juxtaposition for Hitler because no logical necessity is entailed due to his fallibility. If some pigs, which are creatures, have wings, and if all winged creatures sing, then it necessarily follows that some pigs sing. If Hitler is sometimes good, and if Hitler allows evil to occur, it does not necessarily follow that said evil is morally justified. It may be the case, as perhaps may be shown via supplemental argumentation, that the evil in question is justified, but it cannot be because Hitler’s goodness makes said justification necessary (due to his being fallible). But if Hitler is infallibly good, then as my argument shows, it follows necessarily that the evil that Hitler allowed must be morally justified. A dissenter cannot baldly deny that some pigs sing because that’s the conclusion of a deductively valid argument. The dissent must then focus on the premises. Why does this have to be repeated ad infinitum? What mental roadblock keeps you from understanding that? And why do you continue to stupidly insist that I haven’t (or “can’t”) prove the conditionals when I’ve repeatedly stated both that I am obligated to prove the conditionals and that I haven’t gotten to them yet?
Man alive, if you can’t understand the logical consequence of a syllogism or modus ponens, how in the world are you going to be able to understand the proofs for the conditionals?
LikeLike
June 14, 2021 at 3:56 pm
“First, “WE” are NOT talking about the Bible. I’ve made it clear since I began responding to you that I am making a purely logical argument sans the Bible.”
Scalia, either you’ve completely forgotten the entire point of my challenge or you’re being deliberately obtuse. I don’t expect Paul or Elaine to understand the argument, but your interest in philosophical musings goes beyond what they seem capable of. So I’ll stick with obtuse.
Look, I presented my infinite universes problem for God as a conclusion BASED on the Bible. I even provided you with the scripture to justify the premises. But instead of actually addressing the problem, you’ve ignored important chunks of it and turned all precious about multiple free will and no free will scenarios that are simply irrelevant. By disregarding the Biblical evidence I’ve provided, you’ve allowed yourself to argue a straw man, resulting in us talking past each other rather than discussing the question you volunteered to answer in the first place. You can’t claim to understand the argument if you resort to a straw man fallacy to change the point of the issue and avoid answering the question.
Let me be clear: Your free will scenarios are irrelevant because the Bible makes it clear that free will doesn’t exist. I’M not the source of the determinism argument, the BIBLE is.
But as I’ve noted multiple times, whether or not free will exists is irrelevant to the IU problem for God. If you’ll note in my very first post, I concluded that “God WANTED sin to exist, he WANTED humanity to fall, he WANTED the world to become wicked, he WANTED to drown the world in a flood, and he WANTS billions of people to end up burning in hell. It means he is the one entirely responsible for the existence of sin in our universe.”
Did you respond to that conclusion? No. You evidently fixated on the free will issue, arguing the problem of evil and about God being justified in his actions. That’s all irrelevant, Scalia, because none of that addresses or changes my conclusion at all. Granted, I humored you when you got sidetracked. I tend to enjoy getting sidetracked myself sometimes, but evidently you need focus on the issue and I probably shouldn’t have followed you down some of your irrelevant rabbit holes.
“First, since you’ve driven your stake in part on determinism, there is nothing immoral in your possible world. Since all decisions are determined, there cannot be any kind of moral culpability in your universe. There is no such thing as a moral monster or an “atrocity” in your worldview. In our extremely insignificant segment of the universe, molecules bounce off one another just like everywhere else. We have nothing but cause and effect, and since you ascribe nothing immoral to animal theft, deception, “murder,” or “slavery,” what makes humans any different?”
Oh, what a simplistic view of morality! Do you not realize that treating people the way you want to be treated is a good basis for morality? (You should, since it’s a major lesson found in numerous religions and philosophies, including Christianity.) And there is a strong evolutionary component to morality. We are a social species, and ALL social species must have some behaviors that allow for social cohesion, or the society will fall apart (even piranha know not to attack one another). It’s highly advantageous to live in a society, since it allows for banding together to tackle challenges (like having more eyes to be alert for predators, acting together to bring down prey too large for an individual to tackle, and so on) as well as to specialize (thus allowing for experts rather than everyone being generalists, which acts as a force multiplier for a society). Humans are among the most social species, and thus natural selection emphasizes behaviors that encourage friendship and cooperation–we call it morality. Granted, there are still advantages to being selfish, which means that people are not always moral, especially when there are no penalties for bad behavior. Thus, humans develop laws and traditions to make penalties for bad behavior. Those who don’t play nice usually get removed from the gene pool (incarcerated, killed or just shunned), whereas those who are helpful and pleasant are more likely to successfully reproduce and pass on their socially cohesive genes. Bad behavior thus gets relegated to the shadows. That’s what we see in the real world.
Morality is about behavior, not celebrity. Basing morality on God’s edicts means you are basing morality on the whim of an individual with a terrible track record (which is the ultimate in moral subjectivity), rather than on harmful vs. beneficial behavior. It would mean God could consider it moral to enslave children and then beat them so badly they can’t even get to their feet for days, and you would have to consider that moral. (Oh wait…isn’t that exactly what the Bible condones?)
Woops, I let you lead me off into another irrelevant argument again. Focus, Scalia. Please just respond to the IU problem for God conclusion. Here, let me repeat it for you: “God WANTED sin to exist, he WANTED humanity to fall, he WANTED the world to become wicked, he WANTED to drown the world in a flood, and he WANTS billions of people to end up burning in hell. It means he is the one entirely responsible for the existence of sin in our universe.” Do you agree with that conclusion–regardless of how you feel about free will?
“Yes, as a matter of logic, one monkey striking keys at random infinitely can produce War and Peace, but it is also logically possible that the same monkey will type fjfjfjfjfj eternally and never produce anything intelligible.”
This is another irrelevant rabbit hole, but since you evidently missed my caveats, I’ll point them out to you: I said an infinite number of monkeys would eventually type War and Peace “UNLESS you assign an unassailable stop,” and “if there is ANY possibility at all, it’s a certainty.” And then you just introduced an unassailable stop that removes all possibility, and if you’ve set it up so that the possibility is zero, then there isn’t “any possibility at all,” is there? Why else do you think I wrote in those caveats? (And you accuse ME of not paying attention?).
“Likewise, since free will does not entail a contradiction (as you’ve been told), it too is logically possible.”
Sorry, that doesn’t work. Just because something is not a contradiction does not necessarily mean it’s possible. Is it possible that other universes exist? They aren’t contradicted by anything, and in fact can be supported by quantum physics and string theory. But we have no idea if they’re even possible. Same thing with free will. Again, assuming we ignore the Bible on this one, there may be no contradiction against free will existing, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s possible.
“I wasn’t arguing from authority at all. I’m showing that the dispute isn’t a theist/atheist one. These guys are on your team, so you cannot ascribe the difference to a biased worldview.”
Sorry, but that IS an argument from authority fallacy. You’re essentially saying that I should believe them BECAUSE they are atheists. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods. It says nothing about what the atheist DOES believe. So what any one atheist may believe about anything else is utterly irrelevant. If a theist were to say Vishnu exists, and I were to use that as an argument to convince you that Vishnu does indeed exist, would you buy that as a valid argument? Of course not, it would be just as fallacious an argument as yours.
Well, I responded to several of your irrelevant arguments, so feel free to respond in turn if you’d like…but the only response I’ve really been interested in all this time is for an argument against the IU problem for God.
LikeLike
June 15, 2021 at 12:43 am
@Derek, you write,
Neither forgetful (you should talk!) nor obtuse. I’ve told you from the beginning that my argument is purely logical. You either accept that or you don’t. And I repeat: I don’t foreclose a biblical argument down the road, but there’s no point in discussing the matter when you’ve to this point exhibited no understanding of basic logical principles.
And just so we’re clear, I WILL NOT be engaging your biblical argument until the logical argument is settled. If you don’t like that, then please move on. As I told you previously, the best you can hope for with such an argument is that the Bible teaches an evil God. It doesn’t at all touch the logical problem of evil. And if you’re so gung-ho about arguing the Bible and only the Bible, you could have gotten to that point very quickly by simply acknowledging that there is no purely logical objection to the compatibility between God and evil. But of course you’ve not done that. You’ve not exclusively argued the Bible. You have fought tooth and nail to deny the logical compatibility argument by displaying your usual jaw-dropping ignorance of fundamental logic. And since you’re misfiring on all logical cylinders, it’s insane to dive into another argument. So, either accept the terms or drop it because I’m not budging.
You go on:
And the beat goes on. A straw man fallacy is the attempt to refute a person’s position by confusing that position with a less plausible claim not made by that person. That’s something I’ve not done. I’ve known all along that a major component of your argument is biblical teaching, and I’ve never said otherwise. And for the umpteenth time, I’ve stated from the beginning that I’m only at this stage advancing a logical argument and have defended it against your objections. Nothing in biblical teaching touches a purely logical argument for even if a possible world is refuted by the Bible, it nonetheless counts as logically possible. If the Bible teaches that there is a literal place called Hell, the proposition “there is no hell” is still logically possible regardless what the Bible says about it. Man alive! And you call ME obtuse?
And as you’ve done previously, you don’t exclusively argue the Bible for you attempt to revive the logical problem with your infinite universes argument. And if you had been paying as much attention to my arguments as you want me to pay attention to yours, you wouldn’t have written those two paragraphs. First, I responded multiple times. Second, free will cannot be irrelevant for if God directly causes sin through determinism, then God is effectively sinning, but if He permits free will agents to choose sin, then moral culpability rests on those who choose it. And since God knew everything that would occur, if it can be proved that God is good, then it follows that there has to be a morally justified reason for it. And since moral justification is a logical proposition, your argument fails. So long as moral justification is logically possible and so long as free will is logically possible, your objection cannot work. But since these quotations clearly show that you’re NOT arguing solely from the Bible, your straw man complaint belly-flops. You ARE arguing logical incompatibility.
And now you go from bad to worse. “Aw, c’mon,” arguments are worthless and you know it. Moreover, why are you asking me stupid questions? I am determined to believe everything I believe, so why are you beating your head against a wall? Does the cosmos force you to act stupidly by getting exasperated with a theist who is determined to believe as he does? Moral culpability is concomitant with choice. If you cannot act otherwise, then you are not morally culpable. Animals cannot help but act the way that they do. Do they have a “simplistic” view of morality? The fact that you can reason at a level higher than an ant does not imply that you any more free than it. Every decision you make is determined. If you rape a woman tomorrow, you were caused to do it. It is beyond your ability to resist. And if there is no evil in the animal kingdom, there is no evil among humans either, for humans are included under the genus animal. Hitler was forced to gas Jews. Stalin was forced to starve the Ukrainians. Radical Muslims are forced to throw homosexuals off of buildings and stone them to death if they survive. That’s just the way the universe is, Derek.
Lions routinely kill rivals, including their “children,” and they seem to get along just fine. Slavery, theft, and murder are hallmarks of the survival-of-the-fittest evolutionary drive in all creatures. The fact that you may not like certain human behavior is irrelevant because morality doesn’t exist in a deterministic world. If you really believe what you are saying, you would accuse animals of acting immorally. You don’t because you think they’re determined to act the way they do. Ditto for humans, Derek. You have absolutely no platform whatsoever to call anything evil because you don’t really believe in it.
Your societal cohesion argument tells me that there’s nothing wrong with incest. A person who commits incest isn’t doing anything morally wrong, and he or she certainly couldn’t help committing the act. It simply disrupts societal order, so it has to be prevented. That’s like the rule in a lion pride where the male gets to eat first, even if the females are responsible for the kill. If others try to eat ahead of him, he’ll drive them off or kill them. When he’s full, he’ll wander off and sleep and leave the kill to the rest of the pride. The ones he killed who tried to eat ahead of him deserved a gene pool purging because they interfered with pride order. And guess what? Lions have been around for thousands of years. And if a group wants its kind and only its kind in a country, and if that group is prosperous, then nobody else has any basis to object. Indeed, if Hitler had succeeded in winning WWII and had decided to kill every non-white person on the globe, and if he had succeeded in making world society prosperous, then that’s perfectly fine. Animals kill rivals, so the human animal can kill rivals. And since it’s all determined anyway, you can’t blame Hitler for doing what he did. It would have thus been perfectly in order to create an all-white world via genocide. Since homosexuals have “clearly” defective genes and pose a threat to a “normal” family, we can kill them all in the name of societal cohesion like they do in Iran, right? Now, the animals who get killed might certainly don’t like it, but that’s the way things go if you’re stronger than others. Societal cohesion is in the eye of the beholder, and even if there are universal standards like sewage disposal and law enforcement, there is nothing “moral” attached to them.
And again, I’ve answered that multiple times. First, Derek, you need to deal with your memory issues. You said that you didn’t read a reply of mine when you actually replied to it. You reproduced W4 and said that it was impossible when it is exactly what you’ve been arguing as the possible world God could have created, and you imagine straw men when it is demonstrable that you’ve been arguing in both arenas. Second, if your memory isn’t going south on you, then it isn’t a matter of being obtuse, you’re being dishonest. How you’re able to make these kinds of errors accidentally is inexplicable. Sure, incompetence explains your initial errors, but when you’re reminded repeatedly and you continue to make them, that either shows a disintegrating mind or somebody who is dishonest at heart.
I covered both options. And had you been reading carefully, you couldn’t have missed it. You cannot guarantee with pure randomness, and that’s what my counter is designed to show. If forced sequencing variation is introduced, then it follows that every possible text, over an infinite amount of time, will be produced. The probability factor is 1. There is no disputing that. But if it’s a case of logical possibility, then since it is logically possible for 1, 100, 1,000,000 or an infinite number of monkeys to squeal while slapping their hands on their keyboards (and I’ll do it now)…dsfkjdsfkjldsfjdsfjd, then War and Peace, Shakespeare or Where the Red Fer Grows will NEVER be produced over infinity. Thus, “if it’s logically possible, it’s guaranteed,” is false. The only way to guarantee a result is to force blanket sequential variation.
Then you know nothing about logical propositions. All propositions are logically possible if they do not entail a contradiction. You’ll find that in practically any introductory course on logic. I can say, “All Martians are mortal; Borg is a Martian; therefore, Borg is mortal,” with every statement therein being logically possible. Even if there are no Martians and even if they are immortal, there is no logical contradiction in “all Martians are mortal,” so it is logically possible by definition. You’re confusing logical and actual possibility. And why this is so confusing for you is beyond baffling because you previously argued for a virtual world with the caveat that you had no proof whatsoever of it. In other words, an evidence-free logical world was offered by Derek Mathias as a mere logical possibility to the effect that all cosmological arguments for God’s existence in general, and the Kalam argument in particular, fail. So, it is clear that at one time in your life, you understood the difference between logical and actual impossibility or logical possibility and existential proof, but now you do a 180 and pretend that logical propositions are not possible?? You’ve got too many problems on your plate to conduct an intelligent discussion, Derek.
Uh, no it’s not. If all I did was argue that atheists x, y and z believe this, therefore, you should believe it too, then that would be an invalid argument from authority. On the contrary, I argued that propositions that do not entail contradictions are logically possible. If you need to see quotations from logical textbooks or websites, I can provide them. I have argued that from every angle possible, and as I explained, I only offered atheists who know more about logic than you do to demonstrate that this isn’t an theist/atheist divide. I’m not arguing the way I do because I’m a theist. And if guys on your side know more about logic than you do, and if they say that, logically speaking, the problem of evil doesn’t work, then it isn’t an invalid appeal to authority because they DO know what logical principles are. If Mrs. Jones is your English teacher and she says that you’re using bad grammar, it isn’t fallacious to point out that she disagrees with you. She is expected to know more than you on the topic. And given your shoddy track record here on logic, you’re in no position to complain.
Don’t forget, I’m not making a biblical argument and I won’t be making one until you can get your head screwed on straight over basic logical principles. If you don’t like it, tough.
LikeLike
June 15, 2021 at 9:46 am
And one more thing, Derek. I have at least TWICE now conceded the biblical argument arguendo to focus on the logical problem. Why do you have to keep being reminded that you’ve “won”? Why do you keep pushing a point that’s been conceded? Why do you repeat yourself over and over and over when it is clear that I’ve understood you (because I’ve repeated your argument multiple times)? You either know that the logical argument is your Waterloo or your deterministic mind has been caused to shut down when faced with logical arguments you cannot handle.
If you’re not willing to focus on the logical issue, then we’re done. There’s no point repeating your argument for the 437th time.
LikeLike
June 18, 2021 at 4:15 pm
“your argument is idiotic. you are the one that suffers from “cognitive dissonance.””
I apologize for not responding to your posts, but I don’t see much point. Not even once have you responded with anything useful or clarifying, so I’m just going to take a pass on responding to most of your posts to me.
I will, however, respond to the following:
“irrelevant what you said that’s where your argument goes —– multiple universes. which as I correctly said is not an argument at all. we do have free will. God can imagine ???? if we can He can too …. so what that doesn’t mean He did or has to create them.”
This is an example of one of your non-answers. You and I and nearly any other human being can imagine multiple universes, but doesn’t mean they actually exist. So unless you’re claiming God has no imagination and was incapable of imagining what universes he might have created, then he could have imagined free will universes where everyone happened to make the right decisions. Of course it doesn’t mean God DID or HAD to create them, but that’s not the point at all. The point is he COULD have created one of them and avoided thousands of years of unnecessary atrocities and suffering if he had wanted to. Evidently he didn’t want to.
It does make him 100% responsible for all sin, though, and that’s the problem. The best you can do is imagine that God must have a good reason for his seemingly horrific and irresponsible behavior. Perhaps such a good reason exists, but it’s not a given. If someone wants you to worship him, he had better provide crystal clarity on the reasons for causing evil to occur. Otherwise you stand a good chance of worshiping evil. Personally, I would rather avoid that.
And once again you claim that we have free will, yet you’ve done nothing to counter the dozens of passages from the Bible that I’ve provided making it clear that God plans every little thing, including our very steps. So all you’re doing is making an unsupported assertion by claiming we have free will, and assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
LikeLike
June 18, 2021 at 4:55 pm
derekmathias ………….. lol ….. no need to apologize for not answering because people like you never address the issue anyway. all of this time and neither you nor scalia nor anyone on your side for centuries (irrelevant you argue against faith alone/sola fide to disprove God’s existence) clearly stated your position and why ours is wrong. not even admitting our position checks ALL of the boxes and a false/dead faith is identical to what your side is talking about. not even proving why God would indwell a person He knows will shortly become a reprobate sinner and He then will have to leave Him. are you so delusional you can’t see how idiotic that would be if you believed God existed ? no you people can’t and that’s why ilmao.
lol ……………… then you go way off topic and play the lying retard game again making up some silly world that in your reprobate mind proves God can’t exist.
but as usual to ignore ALL of the evidence God did make a perfect world and He’s coming back to right the mess we NOT God created. see you snipe from the sidelines ignoring or very sound belief in a 1st cause outside of space, time and the material as our agreed upon Scientific Laws state.
lol ……….. God doesn’t plan every little thing and because God knows what we are going to do does not mean we don’t have free will. it’s so hilarious you can’t make that distinction …….. the only way we wouldn’t have free will if God made us do what He wanted —- but He doesn’t do that. and again —- your position is idiotic because if He did we wouldn’t be where we are today because He would’ve made us choose properly.
lol ……….. you perfect universe would be not worth living so again —– it would be idiotic if God created it ……. all we would be is puppets dancing on His strings not good for God or us because w/o free will there can’t be love.
LikeLike
June 18, 2021 at 5:47 pm
“And just so we’re clear, I WILL NOT be engaging your biblical argument until the logical argument is settled.”
Yeah, you’ve made it clear that you really don’t have any response to my IU problem for God. It became clear when you insisted on arguing the logical problem of evil instead. Although I did humor you a few times on the topic (and probably shouldn’t have, considering how easily you get upset with people disagreeing with you), the IU problem for God isn’t about the problem of evil, it’s about who is responsible for every thought and action taken by humanity. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for you, but it has caused you to focus on only one consequence of the problem.
“free will cannot be irrelevant for if God directly causes sin through determinism, then God is effectively sinning”
In the Bible God commits and condones nearly all the behaviors we consider sinful, yet if you consider him good despite committing those behaviors, you can consider him good despite directly causing sin though determinism. Calvinists largely believe that already.
“but if He permits free will agents to choose sin, then moral culpability rests on those who choose it.”
Again, NOT if he is the one responsible for choosing among the infinite variety of outcomes a free will universe could generate.
“And since God knew everything that would occur, if it can be proved that God is good, then it follows that there has to be a morally justified reason for it.”
But it’s impossible to prove someone is good, isn’t it? All you have in the Bible is people CLAIMING God is good. But goodness is about BEHAVIOR, not about assertion. We can only judge based on what we KNOW, not on what we DON’T know. If God is good, then he is perfectly capable of making the clear for every individual on Earth. Until he does that, how is it morally justified to treat him as if he is good, given his behavior in the Bible?
“Moral culpability is concomitant with choice. If you cannot act otherwise, then you are not morally culpable.”
Ding! Scalia finally gets it. So if someone determines every plan you make, every step you take (like the Bible says God does), then how are you morally culpable?
“Animals cannot help but act the way that they do. Do they have a “simplistic” view of morality? The fact that you can reason at a level higher than an ant does not imply that you any more free than it. Every decision you make is determined. If you rape a woman tomorrow, you were caused to do it. It is beyond your ability to resist. And if there is no evil in the animal kingdom, there is no evil among humans either, for humans are included under the genus animal. Hitler was forced to gas Jews. Stalin was forced to starve the Ukrainians. Radical Muslims are forced to throw homosexuals off of buildings and stone them to death if they survive. That’s just the way the universe is, Derek.”
For once we agree! If the Bible is true, then all our decisions are predetermined by God, and we only have the perception of free will.
“You have absolutely no platform whatsoever to call anything evil because you don’t really believe in it.”
On the contrary. Behavior that deliberately and unnecessarily caused harm or suffering is evil. It’s not hard to understand. “Evil” is just a label we apply to certain behaviors, and the same goes for “good.”
So many Christians I speak to think that if everything is deterministic, then why do things like punishing people for murder? They feel you need to fear a judging God in order to behave. But consequences are what guides our behavior, even in a deterministic world.
“Your societal cohesion argument tells me that there’s nothing wrong with incest. A person who commits incest isn’t doing anything morally wrong, and he or she certainly couldn’t help committing the act.”
Ooh, bad choice, Scalia. First off, we have evolutionary adaptations that disincline us to incest because our chances of survival are increased with genetic variability (thus the source of moral aversion to incest). But there’s not absolute aversion to it because that would result in certain death when a gravid female or a few individuals become separated their main population. Instead, it becomes a major source of speciation.
Second, God evidently doesn’t think incest is wrong. In fact, he TWICE arranged for it: first with Adam and Eve (requiring their offspring to reproduce with them and/or each other in order to perpetuate the species), and second with Noah (a family of just eight individuals had to populate the world, something that’s impossible without incest). See, that’s the problem with biblical morality…God himself condones, orders and commits virtually all the behaviors we use to identify evil persons.
“Indeed, if Hitler had succeeded in winning WWII and had decided to kill every non-white person on the globe, and if he had succeeded in making world society prosperous, then that’s perfectly fine.”
Except for the part about deliberately and unnecessarily causing harm and suffering.
“Then you know nothing about logical propositions. All propositions are logically possible if they do not entail a contradiction. … You’re confusing logical and actual possibility.”
Since I WAS talking about an ACTUAL possibility, I’m not the one who’s confused. Just because you can construct a logical argument doesn’t mean the subject is actually possible because the premises may not be possible, as you clearly stated with your “All Martians are mortal; Borg is a Martian; therefore, Borg is mortal” example. It may not entail a contradiction, but if Martians and Borg don’t exist, then your logical argument is pointless. THAT’S my point.
“Uh, no it’s not. If all I did was argue that atheists x, y and z believe this, therefore, you should believe it too, then that would be an invalid argument from authority.”
You stated that “the arguments I’ve made here are recognized by atheists (as quoted above) as logically consistent.” Who cares? A logically consistent argument MUST stand on its own. Whether an atheist or theist accepts the argument is IRRELEVANT. The only reason to even bothered mentioning that there are atheist philosophers who might agree with you is to attempt an argument from authority. You were trying to say, “See, these atheists agree with me, so you should too!” Again, the soundness of an argument is irrelevant as far as WHO believes the argument.
“If Mrs. Jones is your English teacher and she says that you’re using bad grammar, it isn’t fallacious to point out that she disagrees with you.”
An English teacher correcting a student isn’t right BECAUSE she’s an English teacher, it’s because she can provide the EVIDENCE for her claims. You did not do that.
“Don’t forget, I’m not making a biblical argument and I won’t be making one until you can get your head screwed on straight over basic logical principles. If you don’t like it, tough.”
I get it, you have nothing and thus you insist on arguing topics irrelevant to the argument. It’s not honest, but at least I understand your impulse. I wonder if your propensity to get lost in the weeds is why you can’t seem to ever have a discussion without getting so upset. If I may offer you some advice, I would suggest brevity and sticking to the topic. You’ll likely find it easier to have a civil discourse.
In any event, it’s clear you are unable to come up with an answer to the issue, so I’m done with this conversation. I just wish you had been much more forthright and clear from the beginning; it would have saved us both a lot of time.
LikeLike
June 19, 2021 at 3:09 pm
derekmathias …………………. lol ……. on the topics of faith alone/sola fide and osas scalia is a delusional fool (ie. as I stated above) but on this he didn’t do a bad job.
lol ………. these arguments of yours about your “IU problem for God” and free will problem for God are only in your reprobate mind.
lol ………… you just keep ignoring the facts that prove the problems you’ve made up in your troubled mind ALL have solutions. look at poor deranged scalia he thought he had me with the verse about the Holy Spirit being extinguished …….. but when you go to the Greek transcript the solution is clear. the meaning is not He will leave you the meaning is by not acting on His promptings you will suppress Him working to benefit your spiritual growth.
now if scalia would’ve been right and that meant the Holy Spirit leaves a believer He has indwelt that would not only be a big problem for me but also for poor delusional scalia —— because unless he could disprove the other verses proving God will not leave nor abandon His children that would break the Law of Contradictions.
LikeLike
June 30, 2021 at 11:58 pm
@Derek, you write,
This is dishonest right out of the gate. There wasn’t any “it became clear” from the get-go. I stated up front that I was addressing the logical problem of evil. If you didn’t want to address it, you could have begged off at any time.
And once you get the dishonesty ball rolling, you just can’t stop. There wasn’t any “humor” whatsoever in anything you did. You denied that there was any logical problem and fought it tooth and nail. But the curious thing about your fighting is you never offered a logical response. You either denied the problem, pretended not to know the difference between logical and actual impossibility, or kept trying to focus on the biblical problem of evil.
And the fact that you deny that the IU “isn’t about the problem of evil” shows that you don’t know what the problem of evil is. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then He could have created any universe He wanted (a world without any unnecessary suffering or evil), but the “fact” that He created a universe with an abundance of both shows that God must be evil because He is responsible for every evil in this world (due to His knowledge that it would occur before He created). Perhaps the point is too obvious for you, but that is EXACTLY what the problem of evil entails. You really need to inform yourself of what you purpose to talk about to avoid embarrassing yourself. You’ll be taking your foot out of your mouth less often.
Moreover, I addressed your specious “IU” problem multiple times—even restating it over and over to make it clear that I understood what you were arguing. I countered that there is nothing that makes God culpable for acts that are freely chosen by others. And the fact that God knew beforehand what choices others would make is justified by the possibility that there is a morally justifiable reason for His acts. The counter was thus articulated repeatedly: If God is infinitely good, there is a morally justifiable reason for the evil that exists in the world. God is infinitely good; therefore, there is a morally justifiable reason for the evil in the world. The conclusion follows the premises, so there is nothing wrong with the inferences therein. As I told you, the way to attack such an argument is to attack the premises. I freely acknowledged that I am obligated to defend the existence of God, His goodness and human free will. For some bizarre reason, you were incapable of seeing the point.
I suspect you’re not really that stupid. You are clearly ignorant because you talk about things you know little or nothing about, and you’re buffoonish for doing so, but you’re intelligent enough to see that you made logical missteps here. Since you live in a fantasy land where atheism reigns supreme and everybody who believes in God is a drooling moron (which is why you like to make videos mocking believers), you cannot allow yourself to see when an argument runs against you. So, you pretend that the other person isn’t getting your point (even when W4 is EXACTLY the alternate that you offered) and are so desperate to deny everything your opponent argues you forget what you have argued solely because you cannot admit that a theist is right about anything. So, it’s not a matter of stupidity; it’s a matter of honesty. You cannot debate honestly because your character is corrupt.
Of course, I disagree with every argument you’ve made from the Bible, but I conceded the point multiple times to move the argument forward. As I also told you multiple times, it would have been very easy for you (since you also denied the logical argument), to put the biblical argument on hold to address the logical one. The fact that you would not let it go, even though I conceded it arguendo, demonstrates a tacit admission that your argument collapses without your distorted view of the Bible. Take that away, and you haven’t a leg to stand on. Actually, you don’t have a leg to stand on anyway because you’re wrong about the Bible too. If you had a modicum of integrity, you could have simply asked me to pick up the biblical debate once the logical one had run its course (since I made clear from the start what I was arguing).
And here’s more of your ignorance on display. I suggested that you try to determine what those arguments are before arrogantly pronouncing their impossibility. Did you even bother to look them up? The significant majority of Christians are working with a definition of “good” that has been well known for a very long time. One would think that a person who sets himself up as some sort of apologist for atheism would at least educate himself how Christians argue for the goodness of God. Instead of doing your homework like a good student, you pop off like an ignorant punk that Christians merely “claim” that God is good without argument. Why should anybody waste their time on somebody as lazy as you?
You quote me and then reply:
True to form, you don’t even bother to understand what you just wrote. If determinism is true, there is no such thing as “unnecessary” harm or suffering. Everything is necessary in a necessary world! Thus, all suffering, including its duration and intensity, is predetermined. If Derek tortures somebody tomorrow, he was determined to do so. If he tortures somebody for hours on end and causes his victim excruciating pain, all of that was determined too. There is no moral culpability whatsoever in a determined world (which you acknowledged just a few lines above what I quoted). In what universe can you agree with me (and claim that I finally agree something you said) and then turn around and deny what you just said??
Again: You have absolutely no platform whatsoever to call anything evil because you don’t really believe in it. Without free will, your actions are caused by forces beyond yourself, so evil doesn’t exist.
And more point-missing on your part. Incest, then, isn’t morally wrong; it should only be avoided because it threatens the stability of our genome. Thus, incest is impractical or harmful from a biological standpoint, but it has nothing to do with evil. If there were no genetic threats from incest, then it’s perfectly fine. And even with the genetic threat, just wear a condom, right? What about women who have sex with girls? There’s no reproduction issues there either, right? So same-sex incest is okay with Derek? You see how silly this is? Of course you don’t see it (really, you WON’T see it) because you’re addicted to bad arguments. And while we’re on the reproduction train, since homosexuals don’t reproduce, that should be outlawed too, right? They “clearly” have a defect which inhibits reproduction, so that’s clearly not the “fittest” (as Darwin would say), right?
And the dishonesty rolls on. That’s exactly the point I’ve been making from the beginning which I explained over and over and over. OF COURSE THE PREMISES HAVE TO BE DEFENDED!! And since you finally acknowledge the logical possibility argument, you cannot therefore attack the logic of the argument! If it can be proved that God exists (or if you at least concede it arguendo) and if it can be proved that God is good, then it follows that there has to be a morally justifiable reason for the evil that exists. So long as it is logically possible (and it is), then the logical objection collapses. The onus is then on me to prove the premises. You thus cede the logical argument. Man alive, why do you have to be dragged kicking and screaming to obvious logical points. And why do they have to be repeated ad infinitum before you acknowledge them?
And you’re just as ignorant of logical fallacies as you are of philosophy in general. If you’re not an expert in a particular field, it is perfectly acceptable to believe the statements of those who are. If you’re not an expert, you have no way of knowing whether the proof given demonstrates the claim. You have to accept the proof on faith as much as you have to accept the claim. Accepting the claim of experts is not arguing ad vericundiam. When you accept the claim of popular or powerful persons who are not experts in the topic under discussion, then you’re fallaciously drawing a conclusion from faulty evidence.
So, when an English teacher says that you’re using improper grammar or that you made punctuation errors, it is perfectly valid for me to rely on her statements. And when philosophers who are trained in logic state that there isn’t a logical problem of evil, that’s more authoritative than the denials of a buffoon who’s demonstrated his ignorance of logic, especially when said philosophers gave their reasoning for their conclusions! Man alive, did you ever receive formal training in logic? If so, you must have slept through your classes or your had lousy teachers.
And for that I thank you. You practically begged me to debate you and I foolishly consented because you at least acknowledged your error in denying that you read a post that you replied extensively to. Actually, that should have told me to stay the course because it was a portent of things to come. You have a problem following an argument, you cannot remember what you argued, let alone what I argued, you reject as impossible something that you offered was possible, and you pop off about stuff you know nothing about. This whole exercise has served to validate my previous antipathy toward debating you. You’re a sad creature who enjoys laughing at people without realizing that you’ve been the punchline all along.
Again, thanks for breaking it off. I have much more serious discussions going on with people who actually know what they’re talking about.
LikeLike
July 5, 2021 at 6:04 pm
Scalia, when looking over your various posts, one thing stands out: the more you get backed into a corner, the more verbose and belligerent you get, and the more you try to distract from the points being discussed. Had you admitted from the beginning that you have nothing, this could have been wrapped up so much sooner. Instead, you’ve gone to great lengths to try to turn a biblical argument into a philosophical argument that does nothing to address the question I posed. You know, there’s nothing wrong with admitting when you’re wrong or when you really have no credible argument. The point is to understand the merits or problems with an argument, not to try to win at all costs. All you do is lose credibility and cause those you argue with to no longer take you seriously. It doesn’t help that you turn petulantly arrogant at the first sign of disagreement, despite my attempts to keep this a civil discourse.
As I said, because of your refusal or inability to address the IU problem for God, I’m done with trying to get a clear answer from you. But I will address some ancillary points you’ve brought up:
“And the fact that you deny that the IU “isn’t about the problem of evil” shows that you don’t know what the problem of evil is.”
This is a perfect example of you attempting to distract from the point. You claimed the IU argument is about the problem of evil, when it simply isn’t. You know how the basic Kalam cosmological argument is about the universe being caused by something and has nothing to do with God, but it is often incorporated into a broader argument for God? Well, the UI problem is the same thing: all it does is establish that God is responsible for how everything turns out in our universe. That means he gets both the credit for the good and the blame for the bad. And as the Kalam can be incorporated into a larger argument for God, so too can the IU problem be incorporated into the problem of evil. But it is NOT the problem of evil, and your attempts to instead argue the problem of evil are a pointless distraction.
“I freely acknowledged that I am obligated to defend the existence of God, His goodness and human free will. For some bizarre reason, you were incapable of seeing the point.”
I think I made it clear that I did see the point. It’s just that you weren’t arguing about the IU problem. Amusingly, you never managed to provide evidence for any of those points, merely made a few assertions.
“Since you live in a fantasy land where atheism reigns supreme and everybody who believes in God is a drooling moron (which is why you like to make videos mocking believers), you cannot allow yourself to see when an argument runs against you.”
And here you go again, making straw man arguments. I have NEVER claimed that believers are idiots, nor have I claimed atheism reigns supreme. I have no problem with believers who are aware that their belief is based on faith, not rational thought, and can keep the two separate. For instance, I have great respect for Francis Collins, head of the NIH and the Human Genome Project, even though he is a devout Christian. The same is true for Robert Bakker, renowned paleontologist and Pentecostal preacher. Both let science guide their faith, rather than the other way around.
My problem is with religious fundamentalists who believe on imposing their beliefs on society, including those who don’t share their faith. Christian nationalism causes demonstrable harm to society, especially science education. I don’t care if someone is a moderate Christian, Hindu, Muslim or whatever, and I respect the right to freedom of religion…as long as those beliefs are not weaponized against those marginalized by religious doctrine.
You clearly don’t get where I’m coming from at all.
“Of course, I disagree with every argument you’ve made from the Bible, but I conceded the point multiple times to move the argument forward.”
But it’s precisely your disagreeing with the argument that I wanted to understand.
“And here’s more of your ignorance on display. I suggested that you try to determine what those arguments are before arrogantly pronouncing their impossibility. Did you even bother to look them up? The significant majority of Christians are working with a definition of “good” that has been well known for a very long time.”
I’m quite familiar with the various Christian definitions of good–and the fact that many of them contradict each other. But I still maintain that it’s impossible to prove based on ANY of them. For example, for those who simply define God as good, that’s just a begging the question fallacy. It’s also a self-sealing argument because it renders the claim unfalsifiable. And for those who claim God must have a good reason for SEEMINGLY doing evil, there’s no way to prove this is true, as the evidence for this is indistinguishable from the evidence that he is actually committing evil. And so on. Furthermore, the “all-powerful” claim for God belies that necessity, by definition.
“Everything is necessary in a necessary world! Thus, all suffering, including its duration and intensity, is predetermined.”
Right. And my point is that the Bible states multiple times that God determines everything. He is the one who determines the duration and intensity of all suffering. Bravo.
“If Derek tortures somebody tomorrow, he was determined to do so. If he tortures somebody for hours on end and causes his victim excruciating pain, all of that was determined too. There is no moral culpability whatsoever in a determined world (which you acknowledged just a few lines above what I quoted).”
Exactly! But it doesn’t then follow that nobody should be punished for their behavior, because that very punishment (or the threat of it) is ITSELF a factor in causing determinant behavior.
“Again: You have absolutely no platform whatsoever to call anything evil because you don’t really believe in it. Without free will, your actions are caused by forces beyond yourself, so evil doesn’t exist.”
And here we go with yet another of your irrelevant distractions. Who cares whether I believe in free will or not? That’s not the issue and has nothing to do with the point. (For the record, I am agnostic on the issue due to insufficient evidence, although I think the evidence we do have weighs against free will.) It’s GOD in the BIBLE who claims he determines everything…so what you are in effect arguing is that HE has no platform whatsoever to call anything evil.
“Incest, then, isn’t morally wrong; it should only be avoided because it threatens the stability of our genome. Thus, incest is impractical or harmful from a biological standpoint, but it has nothing to do with evil.”
Incest IS morally wrong specifically BECAUSE it can threaten the stability of our genome. All morality ultimately stems from biology. Incest is considered a moral evil because it can result in harm or suffering for offspring and even the species. Sometimes it’s necessary, however, because the only other alternative may be to die out, which biologically is a greater “evil.” Murder is only evil because it causes harm or suffering, although as with incest there can be instances where it is the lesser of two evils. The same is true for ALL moral behaviors.
“And you’re just as ignorant of logical fallacies as you are of philosophy in general. If you’re not an expert in a particular field, it is perfectly acceptable to believe the statements of those who are. … Accepting the claim of experts is not arguing ad vericundiam. When you accept the claim of popular or powerful persons who are not experts in the topic under discussion, then you’re fallaciously drawing a conclusion from faulty evidence.”
BELIEVING an expert’s statements is NOT the same thing as ACCEPTING his or her claim. If you understood basic science, you would know this. Ironically, you accuse me of not understanding logical fallacies while you blatantly commit an equivocation fallacy. Are you beginning to see why it’s hard to take you seriously?
“You’re a sad creature who enjoys laughing at people without realizing that you’ve been the punchline all along.”
LOL! Project much? 🙂
LikeLike
July 5, 2021 at 10:56 pm
@Derek,
So, in addition to the many sins you’ve committed here, you add lying to them. I guess a person who has no moral compass wouldn’t let a thing like lying trouble his conscience, right? Of course, you were determined to lie, so you’re not culpable right? Is that your variation of Flip Wilson’s, “The Devil made me do it”? You said that you were done with this conversation, but you keep coming back. I know, I know. You can’t help it because cosmic forces are working against you (at least that’s what the evidence shows, right?).
A little while back, I had an extended online debate with an atheist. By my lights, he was making no sense at all, so I told him that I’d give him the last word. He then took advantage of that and launched a fusillade of invective, mockery and outright lies at my expense. He gave me plenty of ammunition to launch a counterattack, but once I begged off, I was done. My word is important to me and so is my honor. Don’t say you’re done if you’re not done.
I understand your insecurities and your need to pretend that your “superior” arguments have somehow backed me into a corner. Your narcissistic need to flatter yourself is understandable, but the evidence shows otherwise. I’ve shown that you’re forgetful, you cannot follow your own argument, you argue against points that you have made, you contradict yourself by saying the direct opposite a paragraph or two after making the other statement, and you accept in principle something you fought against while trying to pretend that it was your point all along.
You’re a joke, Derek. You’ve established a following of sycophants who think you’re the Grand Poobah of atheism, but you’re really a buffoon Poobah with no clothes. So, my rising exasperation is directly due to your obvious incompetence. I’m accustomed to debating people much smarter than you who can at least present their arguments competently and who do not deny obvious points merely because their interlocutor is a theist. As I stated, your fantasy land that all theists are drooling morons has to be perpetuated because that’s the picture you’ve painted on your blog and in your videos. And when your backside has been handed to you in debate, you cannot handle it because you’re a liar at heart. But because your self-esteem is so fragile, you’ve got to prop yourself up with these sniveling posts of yours. Believe me, you’re convincing nobody here, and if you think for two seconds that you’ve said anything of merit, you’re dumber than I thought you were.
In denying that your IU entails the problem of evil, you write:
Did you do the hula dance after you wrote that? The reason that argument has force is due to the affirmation that God is infinitely good and cannot thus be the efficient cause of evil. Your argument attempts to show that God has to be the efficient cause of evil due to His foreknowledge and omnipotence. It then follows that an infinitely good God is incompatible with an evil world (given the attributes that theists ascribe to God). Man alive, Derek. You really need to sue your logic teachers for malpractice. Your incompetence or theirs is obvious.
Oh, please, spare us. You have no problem with Christians who agree with Derek Mathias that there is no rational basis for faith in God. So, anybody who believes that there is a rational basis for faith in God is a drooling moron, right? Of course, that’s what you believe, and all the evidence one needs of that is a glance at your website. To you, faith is belief without evidence, and that is decidedly NOT the Christian definition of faith. Of course you didn’t know that because you’re an incompetent buffoon.
And that vapid remark is the equivalent of running around with a “Kick Me!” sign on your back. Christianity doesn’t simply define “God is good,” and if you’re really familiar with the standard definition of good, you would state up front what it is (since in your “impeccably” logical manner, you want to avoid straw men). But your posts above show that you don’t have a sweet clue what it is which is why you’re lying now about being familiar with it. You’re lying and you know that you’re lying, but guess what? Everybody here knows you’re lying as well. You DON’T know what the Christian definition of good is. And at this point, don’t bother to look it up (because you never did in the first place). Finding it now when it’s so readily available on the internet will only make you look more silly than you’ve made yourself (which is a feat).
And the buffoonery doesn’t stop. You claimed that there is unnecessary suffering in the world, and as I stated, there is no such thing as “unnecessary” in a necessary world. Everybody is predetermined to do everything that they do. In your previous post, you acknowledged:
You said this in response to my, “Moral culpability is concomitant with choice. If you cannot act otherwise, then you are not morally culpable.” Apart from your stupid, “Ding! Scalia finally gets it,” as if I ever argued otherwise, you agree that moral culpability is concomitant with choice. Since there is no choice in a deterministic world, then there is no moral culpability. Moral evil entails choice, but if there is no choice, then there is no moral evil. Consequently, human behavior has nothing to do with morality. “Good” and “bad” are merely subjective labels for human preferences without any kind of moral dimension. You cannot wrap yourself in the mantle of morality when you deny the preconditions for morality. As you’ve been told multiple times, the animal kingdom routinely practices the things that you abjure, including incest, but there is no moral dimension to what they do because they have no free will. And since humans are no different than animals in that regard, it follows that there is no moral dimension to human behavior either. You see? You still cannot follow your own argument.
And forgetting what you wrote, you insist on something that you agreed isn’t possible under determinism. Incest cannot be morally wrong because no choice is involved. Incest can only be inadvisable from a human perspective because it threatens the genome, but recall that animals also commit incest. Is that immoral too? So, when a mongoose mates with its “father,” she’s morally corrupt? And you again fail to realize that you’re basing the morality of the act solely on genetics. Remove the genetic factor and there is nothing wrong with the act. The point (obvious for normal people but it has to be spelled out for you) is that genetics has no more relationship to morality than extinction does. Before humans got here, species went extinct, which I assume you would agree is also bad for a species. Either they were eliminated by the competition, changing weather patterns killed their food supply and they died out, or they inbred to such a degree that they extinguished themselves. Morality had nothing to do with it; it’s simply the evolutionary process. So, the fact that humans want to protect their genome is as natural as collecting a supply of food. It’s merely one species seeking survival without any kind of morality involved. And since, as you agree, morality is concomitant with choice, then it follows that there can be no morality in a deterministic world. If there is no moral dimension to animal genocide, incest, slavery, and “murder,” then there is no moral dimension when humans do the same. If you knew what you were arguing, you wouldn’t make such foolish statements. Ought implies can, so when one cannot do otherwise, then there is no ought.
Sigh, on the contrary, we aren’t discussing “basic science” Mr. Equivocation. This sidebar has to do with argumentum ad verecundiam. An appeal to authority is fallacious if and only if the authority appealed to is not in a position to render a verdict or a conclusion on the topic under discussion or argument. Thus, people who are not grammarians are in no position to judge your grammar skills no matter how famous or influential those people are. However, if a genuine grammarian or multiple grammarians say that Derek is committing a grammar error, then it is not a fallacious appeal to authority to believe or accept their statements over Derek’s objections. The more you write, the more I’m coming to regret my thinking that you’re smarter than that. You really are that stupid, aren’t you? So, if men who were trained in logic can see the logical flaw in your approach, especially when you shown that you don’t have a sweet clue what logic is, then their views are certainly relevant to the conversation, you dolt.
Now, are you going to keep your word and finally drop the matter? If not, then have the integrity to admit that you lied to everybody.
You’re a sad creature who enjoys laughing at people without realizing that you’ve been the punchline all along.
LikeLike
July 9, 2021 at 7:55 pm
I’m off to Europe for a month, so I need to make this quick.
Scalia, you’re getting nastier and nastier in your accusations, but I really don’t want to descend to your level of whining and antagonism. There’s no point. If you can’t admit to your mistakes and false accusations, well, that’s on you. No skin off my nose. But I’ll respond to a couple of your claims:
“So, in addition to the many sins you’ve committed here, you add lying to them. I guess a person who has no moral compass wouldn’t let a thing like lying trouble his conscience, right?”
First, I didn’t lie to you. Not at all. In fact, I’ve NEVER lied to you or anyone else online, and for three main reasons: 1) As you’ve seen, I don’t make claims I can’t support with evidence. 2) I’m not interested in WINNING arguments, I’m interested in getting the RIGHT answers. 3) Lying would not only misinform people, but it would also be too damn hard to keep straight between all the different threads I maintain on multiple platforms.
What I said was “In any event, it’s clear you are unable to come up with an answer to the issue, so I’m done with this conversation.” I thought I was being clear that because you didn’t have an answer for my IU problem for God, I was done with that particular conversation. In fact, I reiterated that in my next post: “As I said, because of your refusal or inability to address the IU problem for God, I’m done with trying to get a clear answer from you.” I thought I was being quite clear. For you to misunderstand my point and go straight to an accusation of lying says a lot more about you than it does me. It’s like you’re trying to shame me into not responding and this is your latest attempt.
Oh, and your accusations that I have no moral compass is flat-out wrong. Religions pretend that morality can only come from some divine source, only religions clearly DON’T provide a good moral compass. After all, the God of the Bible, for example, commits or condones murder and genocide, animal and human sacrifice, torture, child and animal abuse, theft, slavery, rape, incest, cannibalism, betrayal and lying. You scramble to defend your God by claiming outright that he’s good, and therefore there must be some good reason for his actions, but to me that is just desperate tap dancing. If his actions are not CLEARLY good and, in fact, appear to be pure evil, then God can hardly be considered a moral compass, can he? After all, God was and is used to justify all manner of atrocities throughout history.
As for atheist morality, well, the nations with greater happiness, better health, better life expectancy, better education, better incomes, lower crime rates, lower abortion rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD rates and lower infant mortality than the United States (which is one of the most RELIGIOUS nations in the developed world) are also among the most ATHEISTIC nations of the world: Finland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, France, South Korea, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Iceland, Australia, Ireland, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Israel, Canada, the UK, etc.
In contrast, the poorest, least healthy, least happy and most violent countries are also among the MOST religious nations, including South Sudan, Nigeria, Uganda, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Tanzania, Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Yemen, El Salvador, Colombia, Senegal, Malawi, Indonesia, Brazil, Peru, Syria, Jordan, Algeria, Haiti, Botswana, Ghana, Venezuela, Mexico, Sierra Leone, etc. (More: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201410/secular-societies-fare-better-religious-societies, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report, http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/healthiest-countries/)
Also, atheists represent just 0.1% of the total US federal prison population, which is 31 times lower than the 3.1%+ of the general population who are atheists. Christians, OTOH, represent 70% of the total US federal prison population, which is nearly the same as the 75% of the general population who are Christians (http://thehumanist.com/commentary/nonbelievers-behind-bars-does-the-us-prison-system-privilege-religious-inmates, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States).
So I’m afraid you have no leg to stand on by claiming atheists have no moral compass. And why is it that atheists are in general more moral than Christians? Could it be that morality is just much more clear to us than it is to Christians? After all, we don’t have to reconcile behavior that promotes well-being with the opposite behavior displayed by God. It’s clear to atheists why slavery, for example, is wrong, but anyone reading the Bible would get the opposite message. Thus:
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg
“You’re a joke, Derek. You’ve established a following of sycophants who think you’re the Grand Poobah of atheism, but you’re really a buffoon Poobah with no clothes.”
Wow, I see I’ve really touched a nerve. Well, marinate in your rage if you want, but I don’t think it’s healthy.
“Incest cannot be morally wrong because no choice is involved. Incest can only be inadvisable from a human perspective because it threatens the genome, but recall that animals also commit incest. Is that immoral too?”
First, you keep thinking I claim the universe is deterministic. Again, I do not, and I’ve made that clear before when I said, “For the record, I am agnostic on the issue due to insufficient evidence, although I think the evidence we do have weighs against free will.” It’s the BIBLE that makes the claim that God plans “everything,” including our very steps. You don’t like that, and like most apologists you surely try to twist the meaning of all those passages to mean the opposite of what they say…but it’s pretty sad when a book from a supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful God who by definition could make his words crystal clear to everyone reading the Bible needs people to completely reverse the meaning of words.
Second, as I said, “consequences are what guides our behavior, even in a deterministic world.” And “All morality ultimately stems from biology.” Morality and the consequences for certain behaviors influence the likelihood of committing that behavior. Incest is considered morally wrong because WE as a society consider it morally wrong.
But I wouldn’t argue that incest is immoral if I were you. After all, according to the Bible God essentially forced Adam and Eve and their offspring to commit incest, as well as Noah and his family, in order to perpetuate the species. If incest is immoral, then God is immoral for arranging circumstances for incest to be necessary.
“You’re a sad creature who enjoys laughing at people without realizing that you’ve been the punchline all along.”
When someone resorts to name-calling instead of simply presenting good arguments, it’s pretty clear he knows his arguments have no merit.
I did say I would respond to “a couple of your claims,” but clearly this ended up running longer. Are you going to accuse me of lying about that, too? 😉 But you’ll be happy to know I’m done with you (at least for now–I reserve the right to respond if I decide to read any more of your posts). I really do enjoy discourse with Christians and other religious people, but your constant belligerence, petulance and dissembling aren’t very “Christian-like” and don’t lead to any anything productive, so I don’t see much point in continuing.
LikeLike
July 19, 2021 at 11:11 pm
@Derek, you write,
Said the liar who just lied. First, I answered your point multiple times and you know it. Second, since you stated that you weren’t interested in anything other than the biblical argument, and by your own dishonest words you think that since I wouldn’t address it, you’re finished with the conversation, THEN THERE ISN’T ANYTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT. Regardless how many topics are raised during the course of a conversation, when any non-lying person says that he’s finished with a conversation, that means the conversation is over. Did you graduate from Clinton Newspeak University? You’ve probably told lies like that so many times, you’ve convinced yourself that you’re telling the truth when everybody knows otherwise.
People who dig themselves into holes generally don’t take the good advice to quit digging, and that holds true here. You wrote four paragraphs which amounts to 285 words over something I never said! I said that YOU have no moral compass; I never said that atheists in general have no moral compass. In fact, I’ve said on these boards more than once that I know atheists who have better ethics and some Christian posters on this site. If this were the only mammoth error you’ve made, I might express surprise, but at this juncture, it’s par for the course. “Buffoon” is your middle name. At least try to take some reading comprehension classes, little boy.
No, what you’re getting is what you deserve. I was willing to set aside the past and give this another go, but when you forget what you were arguing, argue against the very point you were making, insist that W4 is an impossible world when it’s the very world you proposed in your argument, make claims that you know something and when you tell us what you think you know, it clearly isn’t even close, and then turn around and tell me to focus and accuse me of “cognitive dissonance,” you deserve no respect. You’re a clown under any rational standard whose stupidity is only exceeded by your arrogance.
Well, let’s see. In Post 366, in response to my quotation of C. S. Lewis, you wrote:
First, Lewis wasn’t defending free will so your remark that he didn’t “prove” it is more of your stupidity. Second, since I’ve stated myriad times that free will needed to be defended in order to complete my argument, it was even more stupid for you add that (as if anybody thought otherwise). And given that it is probable, in your mind, that free will is an illusion, then if that’s the case, there can be no morality under determinism. All you have is cause and effect. Morality has no bearing on any act. Comets crash into planets, hyenas eat zebras and pedophiles molest children. Morality is fiction in a deterministic universe. If, however, there is free will, then a key component of the logical argument is secured (which had to be repeated ad nauseam due to your pig-headed denial of the obvious time and again).
You’re a sad creature who enjoys laughing at people without realizing that you’ve been the punchline all along.
LikeLike
August 16, 2021 at 5:27 pm
“Said the liar who just lied.”
Okay, now you’re just getting childish, Scalia. I don’t know why you always have to turn petulant and bitter every time you argue with someone. I’ve tried to reason with you, I’ve tried to be civil…but it’s like you can’t handle losing and so you feel you have to double down on clearly mistaken positions. I apologize for managing to push your buttons, and let’s just agree to disagree.
But why don’t you take a lesson from Jesus and turn the other cheek? I have no problem doing that–at least in arguments–and I’m not even a Christian. So much rage and anger isn’t healthy for anyone. I think you would be much happier if you followed Christ’s example.
LikeLike
August 16, 2021 at 6:07 pm
“God gives very strict rules when abortion would be allowed and when it would not.”
Sorry, but that’s just not the most rational conclusion. The Bible makes only one claim about abortion, and it’s in SUPPORT of it. Nowhere in the Bible does it condemn abortion, even though abortions have been around since long before the Bible was written. If the Bible meant to teach that abortion is wrong EXCEPT in this one circumstance, don’t you think it would have stated as such? Especially if the information is supposed to come from an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect god who is fully aware that Christians would eventually struggle with this issue? If you’re against something, you don’t state only one example where you’re fine with it and then expect people to conclude you’re against it. Makes sense, right?
LikeLike
August 20, 2021 at 11:41 am
@Derek, says:
Said the liar to just lied. I’ve had plenty of disagreement on these boards without rancor, but it is now obvious that lying might be a genetic reflex which you cannot avoid.
You have not been civil. When you accuse me of not understanding your argument, ignoring your argument (when I restated it multiple times), argue against the very thing you endorse, and then call me obtuse, the claim that you have been “civil” make about as much sense as square circles.
When your incompetence has been called out and instead of being man enough to acknowledge that you were the one who wasn’t paying attention, you try to turn tables and accuse me of the same, you deserve no respect.
You’re an incompetent buffoon who likes to laugh at people without realizing that you’ve been the punchline all along.
LikeLike
August 30, 2021 at 10:12 pm
lol ……… people like you are so delusional it’s hilarious ……
“22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
I see “he shall be surely punished” but delusional people like you don’t. biblically speaking — you don’t get punished for doing something that’s not wrong. therefore, abortion/causing a miscarriage is wrong according to God’s word in that circumstance.
LikeLike
March 6, 2023 at 8:49 pm
The link to Luther’s letter to Melancthon no longer works. Said letter may be found HERE. The relevant text is:
One of the sickest statements I have ever heard from somebody professing Christianity.
LikeLike
March 7, 2023 at 2:26 pm
lol …………. and again scalia proves he loves maroon. i dont care what luther wrote/said and if you didnt have S4B youd understand — comments like that are the response to the maroonic comments of a works righteousness heretic like yourself that cant refute the true biblical gospel message. that message is —- the only way to ensure your salvation is by having a true/saving faith in the completed work of Jesus.
when Jesus accepts you He already knows what sins youll commit and what salutary acts/good deeds youll refuse to do oh delusional one. but He still accepts you and the Holy Spirit indwells you and He wont abandon you for things He knows you will do/wont do.
lol ………… but you keep trying to earn your salvation with your law keeping and salutary acts/good works and youll end up exactly where you belong.
LikeLike
March 7, 2023 at 3:23 pm
Paulie should try to address what was actually said rather than hit something that wasn’t said. If he doesn’t care what Luther said, and my post was entirely about Luther, then what’s he replying to?
Besides, Paulie, “maroon” is a color. You should learn to spell before posting or at least hit your spell check.
Either you believe that you can murder people thousands of times every day and be saved or you don’t. If you don’t, then you can equally fault Luther for his comments without its affecting your soteriological views in the slightest. If you agree with Luther, then you’re just as sick as he was.
LikeLike
March 7, 2023 at 10:13 pm
lol ………… of course its a color oh delusional one and if you dont know why im using “maroon” you really are a moron.
lol ………… and again you prove you have S4B because thats exactly what a works righteousness heretic would say. and you say that because you cant refute our evidence.
ilmao ………. if some one did murder 1000s of people a day every day A. why would you believe they have a true/saving faith ? B. why would Jesus accept that person ?
lol ………….. and see S4B you asks the maroonic question and we loao and say —- if Jesus accepted them and they did murder 1000s of people a day they would still be saved ……. because the blood of The Lamb would cover ALL of those murders.
lol ………… so we are speaking the truth but using hyperbole and driving you deeper into your delusion so you end up where you belong. and you cant understand so ilmao at you.
LikeLike
March 8, 2023 at 3:40 am
“if Jesus accepted them and they did murder 1000s of people a day they would still be saved ……. because the blood of The Lamb would cover ALL of those murders.”
This is one of the main reasons so many atheists and other non-Christians find your religion so repugnant and morally bankrupt. Your version of Christianity believes murder is just fine…as long as you believe Jesus or God sanctions it. As Stephen Weinberg once noted, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
I don’t agree with Scalia on much, but I do agree that that murder justification is one of the sickest statements made by a Christian.
LikeLike
March 8, 2023 at 11:22 am
Paulie writes,
So you lied when you said you didn’t care what Luther said. Of course, lying isn’t an obstacle to somebody who thinks that murder and adultery are permissible for Christians. And Luther wasn’t using hyperbole. He was dead serious. And why appeal to hyperbole? You either believe the sentiment or you don’t. You obviously disagree with Luther because you’re saying it’s an exaggeration. If it’s really an exaggeration, then is somebody who murders and commits adultery thousands of times a day not saved? If so, then Luther was wrong, and you can join us in condemning his statement. If, however, Luther was right, then it’s not hyperbole (in which case you’re lying again). This is something the Bible explicitly states CANNOT happen if somebody is a genuine Christian. It is the epitome of ironies that somebody who claims to be a Bible believer rejects some of the clearest statements in the entire Bible.
I didn’t come here to rehash a 400+ post thread. I came back to find that link because I was adding it to another piece I’m writing. I saw that the link no longer worked, so I found a better one for reference.
Since it appears you want the last word, go ahead and have it. I’m out.
LikeLike
March 8, 2023 at 11:40 am
Scalia ………… again you prove you really love maroon.
lol ………. even if you could prove luther’s formula was the heretical “a false/dead faith=salvation” that doesnt mean your formula of “faith+works=salvation” isnt heretical OR our formula of “a true/saving faith=salvation” isnt the biblically correct one.
lol ……….. and i can say you are professing a “faith+works=salvation” formula because you were given the chance numerous times to clarify and you didnt.
lol ………… of course you didnt because you cant explain away your problem …….. why would Jesus enter into a binding covenant with a person that later He’d have to break —- because they committed the sins He new they would commit OR didnt do the good deeds He knew they wouldnt do ?
lol …………. but what you did do — is post a strawman in a thread from long ago …….. because you are a edp that cant admit he was wrong.
LikeLike
March 8, 2023 at 11:45 am
derek ………… again you prove you have S4B by neglecting the qualifier.
lol …………. and again you prove you love maroon as much as scalia by refusing to answer the big problem work righteousness heretics have ………..
“ilmao ………. if some one did murder 1000s of people a day every day A. why would you believe they have a true/saving faith ? B. why would Jesus accept that person ?”
lol …………. dont worry — i know you cant and wont answer the questions for the same reason scalia cant and wont.
LikeLike
March 8, 2023 at 12:14 pm
“if some one did murder 1000s of people a day every day A. why would you believe they have a true/saving faith ? B. why would Jesus accept that person ?”
lol …………. dont worry — i know you cant and wont answer the questions for the same reason scalia cant and wont.”
Oh, that’s simple to answer. In fact it’s right there in the Bible. God OFTEN orders people to commit murders and even genocide (among other atrocities). For example:
• Exodus 32:27-29 Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
So the answer to your question is that Jesus would accept such a person because MANY of God’s followers killed thousands of people a day—even killing their own friends and family—and God BLESSED them for it. Would God bless anyone who didn’t have a “true/saving faith”?
See? Again, this is what moral people find repugnant.
LikeLike
March 8, 2023 at 3:32 pm
derek ………. lol again you prove you have S4B. because you are mixing up topics. again you ignore the qualifier oh del usion al one. Jesus wouldnt accept a person that murders 1000s of innocent people a day.
lol …………. i cant believe not only how much you love maroon but how intellectually dishonest you are. the people in the OT God Commanded His chosen people to kill were very evil people ………. burning their own children alive in satanic rites to their false god is just 1 of their many atrocities.
LikeLike
March 9, 2023 at 1:58 am
You do this all the time, Paul. You make a claim, someone proves you wrong, but instead of admitting this or providing a well-reasoned argument, you always resort to childish name-calling. You can’t seem to help yourself. And then you either ignore the refutation or switch to a “moving the goalposts” fallacy in a desperate attempt to salvage your dismantled claims. Case in point:
You claimed I couldn’t and wouldn’t answer, and yet I did so easily. So you were demonstrably wrong there. You couldn’t wiggle out of that one, so you ignored it.
You indicated that someone who murdered thousands of people would not have true faith and that Jesus wouldn’t except such a person. I provided chapter and verse of people of faith killing thousands of people on God’s orders. That directly refuted your claim.
So now you are moving the goalposts to claim that the people who were murdered were wicked people, and you slipped in the word “innocent“ to change the meaning of your claim. Setting aside the fact that murdering wicked people is still murder (not to mention the fact that you didn’t demonstrate that they were wicked in the first place), the fact remains that you made several claims that I was easily able to demonstrate are false. That’s it. Don’t try to gaslight me because it won’t work.
LikeLike
March 10, 2023 at 12:22 pm
derek ………… lmao — neither you or scalia proved me wrong.
lol ……….. and i proved God said those people were evil which you ignored proving you have S4B.
lol ………….. and you both are doing what all maroon lovers do — ignoring the valid points i made about your idiotic comments about what luher wrote.
lol ………….. wrong again oh delusional one the answer to my questions isnt in any of yours or scalia’s comments.
lol ………… and it’s irrelevant you dont believe the bible because the bible clearly states — Jesus’ completed work paid the sin debt of the whole world.
lol …………. since neither of you f oo ls understand what that means i’ll explain it in terms so easy even a 5th grader that doesnt love maroon can understand. that means if Jesus so chooses He can forgive a person that murdered 1000s of innocent people if He so chooses on Great White Throne Judgement Day. and God can, by definition biblically, can restore the wronged better than they were when murdered there by being just.
lol ………….. and my use of name calling, belittling, mocking etc……… are standard deprogramming tactics. but hilariously they dont work on people like you and scalia —- they only work on the “called out” that hold to error.
LikeLike
March 13, 2023 at 8:59 am
“neither you or scalia proved me wrong.”
You claim that despite direct evidence to the contrary, and you call US delusional??? Okay, now it’s my turn to LOL!
LikeLike
March 14, 2023 at 6:00 pm
derek ………… lmao — scalia and you are both on the same/wrong side on this topic. and you both were proved wrong but since you both have a re pro bate mind you wont admit it.
lol ………. and of course you lol because you are del us ion al. since you didnt post evidence im wrong that is why i can say you are del us ion al.
lol ……….. and im still waiting for you to prove your last point. which was God killed innocent people. because if they werent innocent God isnt bad. the bible says its okay for God to kill evil people. and it doesnt matter you reject the bible — that is the context of the argument.
lol ………….. and im not waiting for you to post that evidence because you cant/it doesnt exist. but since you have a re pro bate mind youll ignore your problem and just post more stupidity. and that proves im right and you have S4B.
LikeLike
March 16, 2023 at 9:23 am
“im still waiting for you to prove your last point. which was God killed innocent people.”
Did you seriously sneak in a straw man argument and try to pass it off as if it has anything to do with what we were talking about?
To repeat THIS is what you said: “if some one did murder 1000s of people a day every day A. why would you believe they have a true/saving faith ? B. why would Jesus accept that person ?”
As evidence against this claim, I used the following scripture to prove God OFTEN orders people to commit murders and even genocide (among other atrocities):
• Exodus 32:27-29 Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
So you indicated that Jesus/God wouldn’t accept a mass murderer. I provided biblical evidence that he DOES accept mass murderers. But did you acknowledge this? No, instead you changed the argument by claiming *I* said God killed “INNOCENT” people, and you demanded evidence to support this claim.
EXCEPT THAT I NEVER MADE THIS CLAIM. You did, attributing it to me. What I said was that God accepts mass murderers, period. You COULD have simply accepted this correction and then clarified that you meant God doesn’t accept people who mass-murder innocents. That would have at least shown some measure of honesty. But no, you couldn’t admit that, could you?
All that being said, however, I actually CAN provide biblical evidence that God DOES accept those who mass-murder innocents:
• Isaiah 13:15-18 Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
• 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
• Ezekiel 9:5-6“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all—old and young, girls and women and little children.”
• Deuteronomy 20:16-17 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
• Deuteronomy 7:16 You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity.
• Numbers 21:3 The Lord listened to Israel’s plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns.
• Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
• Jeremiah 13:14 I will smash them one against the other, parents and children alike, declares the Lord. I will allow no pity or mercy or compassion to keep me from destroying them.
• 1 Samuel 27:9 Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive.
• Joshua 10:40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded.
Now, unless you want to argue that the people God ordered to murder innocent children weren’t accepted by God, or that murdering babies and young children is okay because everyone is born wicked (you can make that claim, since there is scripture to support it, but then you make God out to be an even more horrific monster), you have no reasonable basis to claim God doesn’t accept mass murderers of innocents.
So as I noted, Paul, don’t try to gaslight me.
LikeLike
March 16, 2023 at 10:07 am
derek …….. lol, again you prove you have S4B. your reprobate mind is only allowing you to see what you want to see.
lol ………….. read the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah S4B. God will spare those evil cities even if He finds even a few people there ………..
“And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.”
lol ……….. were there 10 innocent children there ??? but as the good book implies there werent any good people left there when He destroyed it.
lol ………… im not trying to gaslighting you —- youve proven you are at best intellectually dishonest and at worse a delusional fool. its you saying they are innocent by your rules —- not God’s rules. and hilariously according to you innocent unborn children can be killed and thats okay —- even late term partial birth abortions.
lol …….. does God know what those “innocent children” will do in the future ? yes He does, those people all deserved what God gave them.
LikeLike
March 19, 2023 at 9:54 am
“im not trying to gaslighting you”
Of course you are! You keep gaslighting, rewriting, straw manning and deflecting. Look, you did it YET AGAIN here. You started by indicating that Jesus/God wouldn’t accept a mass murderer. I provided clear biblical evidence that he does accept mass murderers. So what did you do? You changed the argument by claiming *I* said God killed *innocent* people (how is that anything but a lie?), and you demanded evidence to support this claim. And when I called you out on it (AND provided evidence for God accepting mass murderers of innocents anyway), you brought up Sodom and Gomorrah? SMH. That doesn’t refute my evidence at all. Well, that is your pattern of refusing to admit that an atheist could possibly know parts of the Bible better than you.
“and hilariously according to you innocent unborn children can be killed and thats okay —- even late term partial birth abortions.”
Who said anything about it being okay? Nobody thinks that’s okay, even the most ardent pro-choicers. Abortion sucks…but it’s far better than forcing women to become gestation machines who don’t have a say over their own bodies. That’s tantamount to slavery, and a worse option than abortion. And besides, God in the Bible shows little regard for the unborn:
• The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).
• A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).
• God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including “cursed shall be the fruit of your womb” and “you will eat the fruit of your womb,” directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53).
• Elisha’s prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12).
• King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16).
• Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: “They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb” (Isaiah 13:18).
• For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8).
• God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16).
• For rebelling against God, Samaria’s people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16).
• Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: “Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing” (Matthew 24:19).
YOU may think abortion is worse than forced birth, and you’re free to not get one. Just don’t tell women they must sacrifice their own bodily autonomy for your subjective opinion.
“does God know what those “innocent children” will do in the future ? yes He does, those people all deserved what God gave them.”
Okay, so let me get this straight…your version of God knows which babies will grow up to become evil. But instead of just not having them be born in the first place, he blames them for what they WILL do and then forces his own people to brutally murder them while they’re innocent babies instead? Even though he DELIBERATELY created those babies to eventually become evil in the first place? Do you really not see how horrific your version of Christianity is? What kind of a person would worship such a monster? What is wrong with you??
LikeLike
March 19, 2023 at 11:39 am
derek …………… ilmao, wrong again S4B — you are making a fool of/gaslighting yourself.
lol ………….. see i proved you wrong then you try and twist and pervert that to make your problem mine — it isnt.
lol ………….. if the children were “innocent” God wouldnt have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because He promised Abraham He wouldnt. S4B you is using your standard of behavior to judge God, instead of God’s standard He states clearly in the bible.
lol ………….. so at best youve proved you are intellectually dishonest or at worst satan’s useful idiot
LikeLike
March 29, 2023 at 8:09 am
“see i proved you wrong then you try and twist and pervert that to make your problem mine — it isnt.”
And there you go again. You can’t even admit that you changed the wording and meaning by adding the word “innocent,” and you refuse to acknowledge that the Bible clearly shows God’s disregard for the lives of innocents anyway. I even provided you with that clear evidence. Your response is basically a big “Nuh-uh!” Do you honestly think that suffices as a persuasive argument to anyone?
“if the children were “innocent” God wouldnt have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because He promised Abraham He wouldnt.”
By your own argument, then, newborn infants can be evil and worthy of being murdered. And somehow this all-knowing, all-powerful God isn’t capable of simply creating babies born good—or at least not making those that will grow up to become evil to be born in the first place? What good reason could there POSSIBLY be for God deliberately bringing babies into the world, only to order his people to stab and bludgeon them to death?
There is ONE explanation that makes sense: God (assuming he exists) is evil and delights in the suffering of others. That would explain ALL his behaviors in the Bible, including creating life capable of suffering, framing all humanity right from the beginning by creating Adam and Eve guaranteed to fail his forbidden fruit test, drowning the world and starting over without actually eliminating evil, hiding from humanity so well that thousands of religions develop, etc…all the way up to sending the vast majority of humanity to burn in hell forever—except for those chosen few who happen to be mostly born into the “right” religion and who will worship him forever. Right?
Now, am I being “intellectually dishonest,” as you claim, or am I accurately representing a more plausible scenario than you are?
LikeLike
March 29, 2023 at 12:07 pm
derek ………….. ilmao still and again you prove you have S4B.
lol ……………. wrong again S4B —- its you thats being intellectually dishonest not me.
lol …………….. its not me oh del us ion al one its God’s word that says that. your re pro bate mind keeps twisting and perverting things so you can prove God is bad.
lol ………….. the bible is clear we all deserve to die. you bringing up infants is you grasping at straws and I proved according to God’s criterion they are ALL guilty. children under the age of accountability arent innocent S4B —- its that they arent held accountable for their sins. lmao —– have you ever watched children play ………… they are evil self centered monsters that take what they want when they want.
“Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.” your ignorance makes me lmao ——- just those 3 would be delivered ……….. no other adults (male or female), no children, no infants/babies.
LikeLike
March 30, 2023 at 4:45 am
“its God’s word that says that.”
Sure. But if your God is evil, as I noted is a logical conclusion based on the evidence, then he’s capable of lying, right? If so, then the Bible cannot be trusted. OTOH, if you believe your Bible tells the truth, despite the evidence to the contrary, then you have to accept its claims that God plans EVERYTHING, leaving no room for free will. And that means your God deliberately creates babies to be slaughtered by his own followers…which takes us right back to your God being evil again, doesn’t it?
“your re pro bate mind keeps twisting and perverting things so you can prove God is bad.”
Well, if I’m twisting and perverting things, then SURELY you can easily point out the flaws in my arguments, rather than dancing around the issues and refusing to address them.
“the bible is clear we all deserve to die. you bringing up infants is you grasping at straws and I proved according to God’s criterion they are ALL guilty.”
EXACTLY. Your God DELIBERATELY creates humans to be evil right from birth. He could simply “fix” humanity by making every new child born good, right? But an evil God would have no interest in doing that, would he, since by making everyone born evil he can commit atrocities on humanity…and then blame US for HIS evil, thus absolving himself of any blame for his sadism. Genius, right? It’s like poisoning someone, blaming them for being poisoned, and only giving them the antidote if they worship you.
“have you ever watched children play ………… they are evil self centered monsters that take what they want when they want.”
Wow, what a dark and twisted world you must live in! It’s been my experience that raising a child with good, secular morals results in kids who learn how to behave and function well in society. Sure, they make mistakes but they learn. That’s not evil, it’s growth, education and experience.
But let me reiterate what you said, which was that if someone did murder thousands of people a day, his faith wouldn’t be true and God would not accept that person. I point out biblical verses showing your God ordering his own people to kill thousands of people. Since clearly you were wrong there, you moved the goalposts to say God wouldn’t accept the killing of INNOCENT people. So I showed you the biblical verses showing God ordering the killing of innocent people: babies. Since you were wrong once again, you moved the goalposts to say babies are not innocent…despite the fact that they barely have any awareness of the world and have no experiences. And then you said this:
“Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.” your ignorance makes me lmao ——- just those 3 would be delivered ……….. no other adults (male or female), no children, no infants/babies.”
So let me get this straight: In your view there were only three innocent people…so it would be impossible to kill thousands of innocent people. And all babies are evil and deserve to die. So murdering babies isn’t evil? But then you’ve previously claimed that fetuses are babies and that abortion is murder, so are you now saying that abortion is good because babies are evil and deserve death?
I really don’t think you’ve thought through your own theology. You demonstrate everything that is wrong with religion. To paraphrase Steven Weinberg, “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you have good people believing in doing good things and evil people believing in doing evil things. But for good people to believe in doing evil things, that takes religion.”
LikeLike
March 30, 2023 at 9:26 pm
derek ……………… lmao —– i did point out the numerous flaws in your deluded ramblings but just like all reprobates you ignore them and then just spew some more nonsense.
lol …………… nothing wrong with my theology S4B as i can clearly state it and refute your maroonic comments.
lol ……………… wrong again S4B there you go again with your twisting and perverting. God created Adam perfectly but Adam chose to disobey God. again thats you twisting and perverting God’s word so you can say God is bad.
lol …………….. wrong again S4B —– God is going to fix everything and PTL ………….. He’s going to make sure people like you and scalia get what you deserve while people like me get what we dont deserve.
LikeLike
April 8, 2023 at 10:57 am
I don’t think you understand the difference between making a claim and refuting an argument. You didn’t point out flaws in my arguments, you made claims that don’t address my arguments with any actual evidence. For example, you said:
“God created Adam perfectly but Adam chose to disobey God. again thats you twisting and perverting God’s word so you can say God is bad.”
But I actually provided you with the biblical evidence that directly CONTRADICTS your claims. Like this scripture that clearly states God plans EVERYTHING, and thus HE had to be the one at fault for Adam disobeying, not Adam himself. Once again some examples:
• Proverbs 16:4 THE LORD WORKS OUT EVERYTHING to its proper end—EVEN THE WICKED for the day of disaster. [He doesn’t just determine SOME things, he determines “EVERYTHING,” including what the wicked do.]
• Proverbs 16:9 In their hearts humans plan their course, but THE LORD ESTABLISHES THEIR STEPS. [God even determines our very steps!]
• Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its EVERY DECISION IS FROM THE LORD.
• Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but IT IS THE LORD’S PURPOSE THAT PREVAILS.
• Proverbs 20:24 A PERSON’S STEPS ARE DIRECTED BY THE LORD. HOW THEN CAN ANYONE UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN WAY?
• Proverbs 21:1 In the Lord’s hand THE KING’S HEART IS A STREAM OF WATER THAT HE CHANNELS TOWARD ALL WHO PLEASE HIM.
• Ephesians 1:5 He PREDESTINED us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS PLEASURE AND WILL.
• Ephesians 1:11 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.
• Jeremiah 10:23 LORD, I know that PEOPLE’S LIVES ARE NOT THEIR OWN; IT IS NOT FOR THEM TO DIRECT THEIR STEPS.
• Jeremiah 13:23 Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? NEITHER CAN YOU DO GOOD who are accustomed to doing evil.
• Jeremiah 43:11 He will come and attack Egypt, bringing death to those DESTINED FOR DEATH, captivity to those DESTINED FOR CAPTIVITY, and the sword to those DESTINED FOR THE SWORD.
• Psalm 37:23 A MAN’S STEPS ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE LORD, and the LORD delights in his way. [God delights in establishing a man’s steps to take the wrong path?!]
Your only attempt at a refutation is to claim I’m perverting God’s word. Sorry, that just doesn’t fly. You have to provide BETTER evidence than I have provided for you. Boastful assertions are meaningless and a dime a dozen. You have to provide EVIDENCE to refute my arguments.
As I see it, based on what the Bible claims, either the Bible makes false claims about God deciding everything, or God is evil for deliberately setting people up to fail and be punished. Again, to refute that you have to demonstrate the flaw in my reasoning and provide EVIDENCE that shows my claims are false. Merely stating claims like…
“God is going to fix everything”
…is nothing more than an assertion. Where is your EVIDENCE that shows that my conclusion about the Bible or God is clearly wrong?
“He’s going to make sure people like you and scalia get what you deserve while people like me get what we dont deserve.”
Yeah, fine, and all the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Christians who belong to denominations that say YOU’RE the false Christian are clearly wrong. You just happen to have discovered the “one true” version of Christianity among the roughly 45,000 denominations, and everyone else is wrong.
And you think atheists are arrogant and deluded? 😉
LikeLike
April 8, 2023 at 3:03 pm
derek ………….. lol you are and the proof is there for all to see by just scrolling up.
lol …………….. you just keep moving the goal post after i destroyed your arguments. its right there —– you say God is evil because He kills innocent people and i proved they arent innocent according to God’s standard. you are ignoring what the bible says to manufacture a contradiction.
lol ……………. every atheists is “arrogant and deluded” —- way more so than any theist ive every meet. so people are so arrogant and deluded you needed to re-invent the definition of “atheist” as well as “nothing.”
LikeLike
April 9, 2023 at 3:26 am
“you say God is evil because He kills innocent people and i proved they arent innocent according to God’s standard. you are ignoring what the bible says to manufacture a contradiction.”
What are you talking about? I AGREED with you that people are evil according to God’s standard. In fact, scroll up a bit and you can see exactly what I said: “Your God DELIBERATELY creates humans to be evil right from birth. He could simply “fix” humanity by making every new child born good, right? But an evil God would have no interest in doing that, would he, since by making everyone born evil he can commit atrocities on humanity…and then blame US for HIS evil, thus absolving himself of any blame for his sadism. Genius, right? It’s like poisoning someone, blaming them for being poisoned, and only giving them the antidote if they worship you.”
I’M not the one ignoring what the Bible says. I’m afraid YOU are the one guilty of that distinction. You are deliberately cherry-picking the biblical passages that you find acceptable and ignoring the ones that cause you cognitive dissonance.
Let me walk you through it: I point out the scripture where God orders people to murder babies. You say that’s okay because those babies are born evil. I agree that the Bible says this and I show you the scripture that says God makes EVERY decision, which means HE is the one who deliberately created those babies to be evil and make evil decisions.
So I come to the logical conclusion that either the Bible is lying about God determining every decision (and thus he is not responsible for people committing evil, but the Bible cannot be trusted), or God is evil for deliberately creating babies to be evil by default and then blaming them for being evil. You can’t have it both ways and claim to be a rational person.
I’m not the one manufacturing a contradiction; the Bible contains clear contradictions and you are simply refusing to accept them. Your cognitive dissonance is so strong that your beliefs have led you to claim that the most innocent among us—babies!—are deserving of death because they meet God’s standard of evil. But you refuse to acknowledge that GOD HIMSELF deliberately created those babies to be evil so he could order them to be executed.
Do you not see how badly your version of Christianity has corrupted your morality so deeply that you’re essentially throwing babies under the bus? You accept the Bible’s claim that babies are evil and deserving of death…and yet you ALSO claim all life is precious and that abortion is wrong because it kills babies. I’m fully pro-choice (because I believe nobody has a right to violate someone’s personal autonomy), but I would NEVER consider it okay to slaughter a born baby!
So since it can’t be true that God makes all our decisions for us AND that he’s not responsible for all evil, and you apparently have come down on the side of God deliberately creating babies worthy of murdering, then you believe that God is evil, right? Or am I mistaken and in fact you believe the Bible contains lies?
Again, I think you really need to reevaluate your religion. There are much better versions of Christianity that don’t require you to embrace evil.
LikeLike
April 9, 2023 at 4:25 pm
derek …………. lol ……… wrong again S4B —- i proved God doesnt create evil people He creates people with free will that do evil things ………… totally different but since you are mentally ill you cant see that. plus the bible proves God will repair/restore the sheep/wheat/His children and punish the evil ones. and the bible is clear —- satan created children too.
lol ……………… wrong again S4B —- you keep ignoring the facts i present and keep moving the goal post so you remain in your del us ion.
lol ……………. wrong again S4B —- there you go again making a f oo l of yourself. i proved those babies are evil according to the bible, you admit you agree with me those people are evil what am i talking about, then you say im wrong the babies are innocent. you are like the edp that say a woman has a penis and a man can get pregnant OR the earth is flat.
lol …………… wrong again S4B —- there you go again lying. i correctly proved biblically that not ALL abortions are against the bible. some are condemned some arent. what del us ion al you did is twist and pervert that fact to support your deranged view ALL abortions are allowed even when the unborn child is viable. your re pro bate mind cant understand complicated matters —- its just like in the taking of a life, not every case is a crime some cases are justifiable homicide.
lol ………….. nothing wrong with me S4B but you need to seek help from a mental health professional.
lol ………….. wrong again S4B —- you see contradictions that arent there so you can be your own god. just like S4B scalia cant see his error here because he wants to “boast” of his law keeping, salutary acts/good works.
LikeLike
April 14, 2023 at 7:06 am
“i proved God doesnt create evil people He creates people with free will that do evil things”
What is the matter with you, Paul? I provided to you a DOZEN examples of chapter and verse proving that the Bible says God plans everything. Not just SOME things, mind you, but EVERYTHING. That means free will CANNOT exist, by definition.
So AGAIN I ask you, is the Bible lying about God planning everything or not? If it’s not lying, then free will cannot exist. If it is lying, then how can you trust anything in the Bible? And don’t just keep claiming (as you have been) that you proved me wrong, without actually providing that evidence. Please spell out EXACTLY how the Bible supports your notion that there is no conflict between free will and all those passages I provided above. I’ll give you one more chance.
But you can’t provide any convincing argument, can you? Your belief in your dark and twisted version of Christianity is so strong you cannot acknowledge the clear and well-supported dilemma I’ve presented to you. So all you can do is insist—without any biblical evidence—that I’m wrong…because you cannot bear the thought that an atheist has you boxed into a theological corner.
“i proved those babies are evil according to the bible”
Yup, I agree with you there. So you evidently agree that God deliberately and unnecessarily creates ALL babies to be evil by default, so he can order his own followers to rip them from their mothers and slaughter them. Amazing.
There’s really nothing more to say about that, other than if you can’t see what is horrifically evil about anyone—especially an all-powerful being who by definition would NEVER have to commit such an atrocity—ordering his followers to murder babies, you have no moral compass. Worshiping evil is evil.
LikeLike
April 14, 2023 at 4:48 pm
derek …………… lmao —- there’s nothing wrong with me S4B, the problem is yours. it’s you that refuses facts not me. not just here but in every other conversation i’ve seen you have on here. you and your fellow maroon lover still haven’t disproven any of the facts we’ve presented here. and just like in the example of abortion —- i agreed the water of separation would cause a miscarriage but that doesn’t prove abortion is allowed in every instance. the water of separation is used when the husband suspects his wife committed adultery and is carrying another man’s child. just like i proved i could kill a person that invades my home but i cant kill a person i invited into my home unless they committed a crime. plus i proved the bible says it’s a sin to cause a miscarriage to a couples wanted unborn child. that proves you are a del us ion al f oo l but i’m a person that uses logic and reason. and just like S4B you won’t admit you are wrong about abortion you won’t admit you are wrong about faith+works=salvation.
lol …………. again you prove you are mentally ill —-those 2 things are irrelevant and you didnt prove “God plans everything.”
the bible is clear we have free will S4B — if we didnt have free will we’d still be in the garden of eden. your re pro bate mind can’t comprehend complex issues.
lol …………… wrong again S4B —- the bible is crystal clear …… God is good and man is evil because we chose evil daily. you just keep proving how much you love maroon — you keep twisting and perverting the bible to delude yourself into your erroneous belief. if you were doing a book report for English class you’d get an F for a grade because you’ve just made up everything to fit your preconceived false notion God is evil.
LikeLike
April 20, 2023 at 9:44 am
“i agreed the water of separation would cause a miscarriage but that doesn’t prove abortion is allowed in every instance.”
I never said it did. I said the ONLY mention of abortion in the Bible is an ENDORSEMENT of it, and NOWHERE in the Bible does it say abortion is wrong. Thus, you can’t use the Bible to claim abortion is wrong.
“just like i proved i could kill a person that invades my home”
Again, you’re making a claim that the Bible contradicts:
• Matthew 5:39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
• Luke 6:29-30 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
• Romans 12:17-19 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge
• 1 Kings 8:43 Do whatever the foreigner asks of you
Do those biblical lessons sound like anything that permits you to KILL someone who invades your home? And just to add some confusion, the Bible also says:
• Exodus 22:2-3 If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. (So as long as he robs you in the daytime, you’re not allowed to kill an intruder.)
So you have to deliberately ignore the parts of the Bible that contradict what you WANT to be true in order to claim the Bible is fine with you killing a home invader.
See the difference in how we argue? You make claims without backing them up or by ignoring biblical contradictions to your claims, whereas I provide evidence that supports my positions.
“you didnt prove “God plans everything.”
Oh really? So these passages that say God DOES plan everything are lies?
• Proverbs 16:4 The Lord works out EVERYTHING to its proper end—even the wicked for the day of disaster. [He doesn’t just determine SOME things, he determines “EVERYTHING,” including what the wicked do.]
• Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its EVERY DECISION is from the Lord.
• Ephesians 1:11 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.
Come on, be honest for once and admit that the Bible DOES say God plans “everything.” Because either you accept that or the Bible is lying. Sorry, but there is no other choice. Catch-22.
“the bible is clear we have free will”
Really? Where does it say that? NOWHERE. What the Bible says is that we must make the right choices, but if the above passages are true, then God is the one who decides which option we take with every choice. Our choices are NOT ours to make.
“if we didnt have free will we’d still be in the garden of eden.”
Unless God is evil and he deliberately framed Adam and Eve. He put them in the garden even though he knew before he even created the universe that they would fail his test, but he did NOTHING to fix the problem BEFORE creating Adam and Eve. They didn’t have the free will to choose to NOT disobey him because they had NO knowledge of good and evil until AFTER they ate the fruit, and thus couldn’t have possibly known that disobeying God is evil. Sorry, but my explanation makes far more sense than yours does.
“God is good and man is evil because we chose evil”
And as I keep proving to you from the Bible itself, the only way evil can exist is because God WANTS it to exist because HE determines EVERYTHING that happens. Or the Bible is lying. Sorry, but you’re the one who believes the Bible is true. I’m just showing you the inevitable consequences of your belief.
“if you were doing a book report for English class you’d get an F for a grade because you’ve just made up everything to fit your preconceived false notion God is evil.”
LOL! My degree was in English (and evolution science), I’ve written two novels and eight screenplays, I’ve taught English, writing and debate…but yeah, I’m sure I’d get an F for making all this up. 😉
Face it, Paul, the reason you’re feeling so frustrated is because my arguments are supported with evidence and actually make more sense than your own claims. Otherwise you wouldn’t have to ignore all the parts of the Bible that directly contradict your claims.
LikeLike
April 20, 2023 at 6:08 pm
derek ………… im not “feeling frustrated” im lmao at your delusional comments like —- “I never said it did” in regards to abortion. this proves you are a maroon and shows how foolish your arguments are. if the bible allows abortion in certain instances but not others im right and you are a fool. and you are so delusional you cant see that —- your maroonic argument would only work on those that say the bible does not allow abortion ever/under any circumstances period. but as ive said before — if a majority wants to ban abortion in instances that God allows thats allowed under our system of govt.
lol ………… wrong again S4B —- i dont ignore them i explain why they arent contradictions. its delusional you that ignores the facts i present to remain in your delusion. just like in this case —- you still havent explained why we are only saved by Grace and its only by faith in Jesus’ completed work we can access that Grace.
lol …………. wrong again S4B those verses dont mean we are puppets in God’s play and we cant do anything until He pulls are strings.
lol …………. “• Proverbs 16:4 The Lord works out EVERYTHING to its proper end—even the wicked for the day of disaster.” your own evidence proves you have S4B —- that proves me correct not you. the wicked have free will so they can act against God’s plan but God will make His wronged child whole in the end and punish the evil people. theres many things God doesnt control because they wont disrupt His over all plan. so He wanted pharaoh to do what he did so He “hardened his heart.” if God didnt care what pharaoh did He wouldnt have “hardened his heart.”
lol …………. He didnt frame Adam and Eve — He allowed them free will. no one in their right mind would want someone to love them by force.
lol ………….. irrelevant S4B —- 2 different things ……… God can be good and other people can choose to do evil. and you keep proving you have S4B because the bible is clear God will rule and reign and make His wronged children whole.
lol ………….. irrelvant —- as youve proven here all you can write is foolishness. and even if your books were top sellers — i doubt they are but theres lots of maroon lovers out there now like you that believe evolution science ……….. “from goo to you via the zoo.” and the F isnt for your grammar its for your maroonic thought process.
LikeLike
May 1, 2023 at 10:06 am
“you still havent explained why we are only saved by Grace and its only by faith in Jesus’ completed work we can access that Grace.”
Sure, it’s easy to explain from an atheistic perspective: The whole salvation based on grace claim is just an assertion made by a religious book that has no basis in reality. The Bible could claim that cheese is the devil’s earwax and it would be just as irrelevant and meaningless.
But a more philosophical way of looking at it is that salvation through grace is a sad and irresponsible method for salvation that does nothing to make our world a better place. All that’s really important is that you “accept” the “gift” of salvation and you will automatically go to heaven (at least according to many Christian denominations—YMMV). You don’t have to be a good person, and in fact you can treat people the opposite of how Jesus treated immigrants, the poor, societal pariahs, etc. and you’ll still be saved. And particularly in your case, you can childishly call people names and insult them all you want without jeopardizing your salvation. Because behaving like a good person and doing good “works” is not the basis for salvation, there is little impetus for Christians to make this world a better place. In short, you can be a miserable, nasty human being who makes the world a worse place, yet still go to heaven. How messed up is that?
“those verses dont mean we are puppets in God’s play and we cant do anything until He pulls are strings.”
You keep ASSERTING that but AGAIN you provide no actual EVIDENCE for that claim.
“• Proverbs 16:4 The Lord works out EVERYTHING to its proper end—even the wicked for the day of disaster.” your own evidence proves you have S4B —- that proves me correct not you. the wicked have free will so they can act against God’s plan but God will make His wronged child whole in the end and punish the evil people.”
Here you go again, deliberately evading the point I’m making, even though I even CAPITALIZED the most relevant word. The passage clearly states that God plans EVERYTHING—not just SOME things, but EVERYTHING. That means the next line about the wicked is saying God even made plans to have wicked people behave how he wants them to. It literally says NOTHING about free will and gives NO indication that the wicked have free will.
This is another example of you imposing your own wishes on scripture to force it to mean what you WANT it to mean…because if you read it at face value, it would shatter your twisted view of Christianity. That’s cognitive dissonance at work, pushing you to desperate actions. THAT is how I know you are feeling frustrated.
Look let’s just keep it simple for you, okay? When the Bible says that God plans “everything,” including our very steps, is it telling the truth? If it is, then free will doesn’t exist BY DEFINITION. You can’t rationally have your cake and eat it too.
LikeLike
May 1, 2023 at 12:50 pm
derek …………… lmao —- wrong again S4B ………. i didnt ignore your point — I destroyed your point. and you just keep proving you are del us ion al — as i proved above that doesnt mean we dont have free will which is your point. God will right ALL wrongs in the end and destroy the evil ones.
lol …………. its you and s4B scalia that not only ignore our points but refuse to address those points and go on to make irrelevant arguments about non-related topics.
lol ………….. wrong again S4B — you are twisting and perverting that verse — it doesnt say God plans everything it says the ““• Proverbs 16:4 The Lord works out EVERYTHING to its proper end—even the wicked for the day of disaster.””
lol …………… thats a totally different meaning than what S4B you is stating. even if you had a verse that said <<>> that doesnt mean we are a puppet and God is controlling everything we do like/God has written everything thing we will say/do our entire lifetimes.
lol …………… you just keep proving you are mentally ill and are seeing things in the bible that arent there to support your “atheistic” worldview.
LikeLike
May 1, 2023 at 12:53 pm
for some reason my example verse got deleted between the <<>> i wrote ………. “God plans my every move.”
LikeLike
May 14, 2023 at 9:21 am
“you are twisting and perverting that verse — it doesnt say God plans everything it says the ““• Proverbs 16:4 The Lord works out EVERYTHING to its proper end—even the wicked for the day of disaster.””
Just to be clear, you actually believe that the Bible clearly stating “the Lord works out everything to its proper end” doesn’t mean God plans everything? Wow. Well, you’ve either lost your grip on reality or are just trolling me. Either way, you’ve made it abundantly clear that there’s no way to have a rational conversation with you. That’s just sad.
LikeLike
May 30, 2023 at 12:14 pm
lmao ………… i’ll try again as my last post disappeared. no one can love maroon as much as people like you.
lol ……….. yes im correct S4B ……….. there is a big difference between the Lord working everything out in the end and us NOT having free will. because if the Lord planned everything we’d still be in the garden as He planned.
lol …………. if you cant see the difference you are even a bigger f oo l than i first thought.
LikeLike
June 13, 2023 at 7:40 am
“if the Lord planned everything we’d still be in the garden as He planned.”
Okay, thanks for clarifying that the Bible is lying when it asserts that “The Lord works out EVERYTHING to its proper end” — Proverbs 16:4
See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
LikeLike
June 16, 2023 at 6:59 pm
lol ………… wrong again S4B. you just keep proving what a del us ion al f oo l you are……….
“The Lord works out EVERYTHING to its proper end” — Proverbs 16:4 ………. doesnt mean we dont have free will oh del us ion al one. it proves we do have free will, God lets us make mistakes and He fixes everything in the end just like a good parent would.
LikeLike
June 20, 2023 at 8:48 am
Hmm, the Bible says God plans “everything,” which leaves no room for free will. If we had free will and could change ANYTHING, then God would not plan everything, only SOME things. Yet you think that PROVES we have free will? I don’t think you understand what the word “prove” means. You apparently just cannot bear the thought that GOD treats humanity like toy soldiers or characters in a movie, deciding every action everyone makes, all for his own amusement, because then you would have to acknowledge that he’s evil. But the Bible NEVER says we have free will, and instead over and over again it says we DON’T have free will. Yet you call ME deluded for providing you with undeniable evidence? Pot, kettle, black!
Furthermore, if you think a God who would deliberately create a world knowing he would send the vast majority of humanity to burn in hell for so minor an infraction as not believing he exists is like a “good parent,” then I fervently hope you aren’t a parent…because no good parent would EVER do such an evil thing.
Rule #1 for a good parent: DO everything you can to protect and care for your children, even if they reject you. DON’T hide from them so well that your children don’t even believe you exist, and then PUNISH them for believing in other gods or not believing in any gods at all, ESPECIALLY when you could have EASILY prevented that from happening.
In any event, if all you’re going to do is ignore the evidence of contradictions and keep chasing your tail trying to have the Bible be true AND for free will to exist, I don’t see the point with continuing this argument with such a dishonest or deluded person. So I’m done and you’re dismissed.
LikeLike
June 30, 2023 at 11:58 am
derekmathias ……………. lmao —- wrong again S4B………… it’s you that misinterprets the bible to say we dont have free will.
lol ………… and just like many del us ion al people, instead of making an argument you just spew more nonsense.
lol ……….. you didnt even address what your own evidence proves let alone address any of the other evidence ive posted that proves you wrong ………..
A. if God has to work out things in the end that proves a person had free will to commit an action God had to remedy.
B. Jesus’ own words in The Lord’s Prayer prove we have free will ……… because we are to pray for God’s will “to be done on earth as it is in heaven.” but since you have S4B you cant see what that means. that means God’s will isnt being done on earth now.
C. and even where God’s will is being done in heaven satan and his angels had the free will to rebel.
LikeLike
July 16, 2023 at 9:36 am
“A. if God has to work out things in the end that proves a person had free will to commit an action God had to remedy.”
Except that Proverbs 16:4 says, “The Lord works out EVERYTHING to its proper end.” So by your interpretation, NOTHING God planned worked out right and he has to “work out everything in the end.” So you’re effectively saying an all-knowing God managed to knowingly create a world where free will would screw up absolutely EVERYTHING? Yeah, your interpretation makes no sense. Besides, NOWHERE does it say God works things out “in the end.” That’s you adding to the Bible to try to wriggle out of a serious contradiction. And you know what the Bible says about adding to the Bible, right?
• Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God is flawless. … DO NOT ADD TO HIS WORDS, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
• Deuteronomy 4:2 DO NOT ADD TO WHAT I COMMAND YOU AND DO NOT SUBTRACT FROM IT, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
“B. Jesus’ own words in The Lord’s Prayer prove we have free will ……… because we are to pray for God’s will “to be done on earth as it is in heaven.” but since you have S4B you cant see what that means. that means God’s will isnt being done on earth now.”
You keep running in circles here. If God is the one making all our decisions, then Jesus telling you to make the right decisions means nothing if God is the one controlling what you decide to do.
But worse, that passage implies that people can change God’s plans by praying. Do you really think God’s will WON’T be done on Earth unless people pray for it to happen? What kind of messed up theology is that?
“C. and even where God’s will is being done in heaven satan and his angels had the free will to rebel.”
Who says? If God is evil and he controls EVERYTHING, then HE decided to make Satan and the angels rebel. What better way to make himself look like the good guy than by deliberately creating an “enemy” to fight against. If God is all knowing, then he KNEW before he created Lucifer that he would become Satan and convince a third of the angels to rebel. But God let it happen anyway, leading to thousands of years of tragedy that could have EASILY been avoided simply by not creating Lucifer. So what’s the most reasonable explanation? God WANTED Lucifer and the angels to rebel so he could have a fall guy to take the blame for God’s own setup.
But your biggest problem here is that you KEEP insisting free will exists WHILE TOTALLY IGNORING the passages I listed showing that God determines everything, including each step we take. You just keep going back to saying free will exists as if those contradictory passages don’t exist.
So let me try to make it as simple as possible for you: Does God control everything, including our very steps, or doesn’t he? And if he doesn’t, then how do you account for those passages that say he does? And please…try not to dodge, deflect and lie.
LikeLike
July 27, 2023 at 8:00 pm
If eternal life in hell is how God made it.
then our purpose in this life is to evade it,
as the time spent in hell is infinite,
so avoiding said hell is more important
Jesus summed up the law as to love
so we’re saved by faith apart from love
avoiding hell is all that matters.
if works don’t save, then love doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
August 12, 2023 at 12:28 pm
derekmathias ………….. wrong again S4B our evidence is irrefutable that’s why people like you have to twist and pervert other biblical verses to support you instead of proving our evidence is wrong.
“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” lmao ……….. you cant choose if you dont have free will by definition oh del us ion al one.
lol ……….. but your evidence is easy to refute. do you have a book of “Safe Work Practices/Procedures” where you work??? they guide us but dont make us perform/dont perform them just like that biblical verse you twist and pervert to say proves we dont have free will.
LikeLike
August 12, 2023 at 1:57 pm
“you cant choose if you dont have free will by definition”
You really can’t wrap your head around this, can you? It’s actually quite simple:
Does a computer have free will? Clearly not (at least not yet). Does that mean it can’t be programmed to make a choice? Of course not—we program computers to make decisions ALL THE TIME (if X occurs, do Y, otherwise to Z). So if a computer LACKS free will but it CAN make choices, then your above claim is clearly FALSE.
Similarly, if the Bible says we MUST make the right choices, but GOD is the one determining what our decisions will be, then we can LACK free will (as MUST be true if God plans EVERYTHING, as the Bible says) but CAN make choices (which obviously we can do). THIS conclusion means you don’t have to decide WHICH passages in the Bible on this topic are true and which are false. It allows BOTH sets of passages to be true, and you don’t have to conclude that the Bible is lying to you.
But then you HAVE to accept that God is the one who is 100% responsible for ALL sin and evil.
See? I don’t have to twist myself in knots to try and make the Bible fit preconceptions the way you do. Over and over again you keep avoiding addressing the obvious contradiction set up by the Bible and, amusingly, you instead accuse ME as the delusional one. But what is more delusional than blindly hiding from the truth—in this case that the Bible contradicts itself?
It’s okay, I’ll let you off the hook so you don’t have to squirm from cognitive dissonance anymore. By this point it’s clear to anyone reading this thread that you can’t answer my questions, and I don’t want to be accused of bullying you. So we’re done with this discussion. Feel free to respond if you want, but I’m done. But I would suggest that you reflect on your inability to answer my questions and really think about what that says concerning your own ability to think rationally. Good luck.
LikeLike
August 16, 2023 at 3:17 pm
derekmathias …………… lmao —- you are the person that isnt thinking rationally.
lol ………….. no one can be as dumb as you people …… thats why i can say you are a delusional fool aka have S4B.
lol …………… our evidence is crystal clear s4b —- it’s you that gets to “choose,” that means you have free will. your failure to admit that not only proves you have s4b it proves you wont admit that your evidence is wrong when we prove it is.
lol ……………. “guiding” doesnt mean God is making you take that step s4b. it means as we’ve proven ………. God is giving you information on what you should do or shouldnt do.
lol ………. but its you that can step where He says or you can step where you want.
lol …………… even the biblical verses that appears to show God makes a few individuals do what He wants in a few instances to fulfill His plan we have logical and rational explanation why it only appears that way eg. pharaoh in the exodus story. God didnt make pharaoh reject His instructions. God asked pharaoh to do something He knew pharaoh would never do.
LikeLike