Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?

Faith, you're the one who is saying that the Pauline writings can only be interpreted to mean that Paul is saying that non-believers are damned. You're also the one who is insisting that this is the only "valid" Christian way to understand Paul's writings too.You even went on to say that anyone who doesn't understand it the way that you and Legend are understanding it are guilty of the following: You even said previously that: Who's defining everything a certain way so that you can't help but win the argument Faith? Well......I think we both believe that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
...I think we agree that God created the heavens and the earth.
...I think we agree that Jesus is true God and true man.
...I think we both agree that Christ is the only true savior for all mankind.
...I think we both agree that no one can do anything good in God's eyes except by the Holy Spirit -- even Christ was led by the Holy Spirit when he "emptied himself" to incarnate here on earth.
...I think we actually agree on many things that would define what it means to be a Christian.Actually, I'd say that the things that unite us are far greater than the things that divide us.What we don't agree on is whether the Pauline writings were written with the specific intention of damning those that do not believe in Christ. I specifically disagree with the "assumption" that "Paul is unambiguously saying in Romans that no one can be saved by deeds of the law -- or only by faith in Jesus for that matter."As I quoted and outlined above, I think that Paul was warning self-rightoeous Christians about the danger of thinking too highly of themselves. More specifically, he was repeatedly pointing out that it is Christ who is doing the work in us -- and that we could do nothing unless Christ was moving us to do so.So, for example, within the Pauline passages, whenever he notes that it is only through Christ that we are saved, his admonition is not so much about stating that non-Christians are damned to hell. Rather, in my opinion anyway, I think it is more accurate to say that he is warning his Christian brethren about falling into the same temptation that the adversary himself did -- the hubris of thinking that we have somehow achieved these glorius things without God. Actually, what Legend is spelling out is a restricted Protestant view -- since many orthodox Christians disagree with his assumptions.As I said before, this doesn't prove that his interpretation of the Scriptures is wrong. You and he may be correct for that matter. However, since I've pointed out many different Protestant views which conclude in some way or another that those who do not know Christ can noentheless be saved by Christ, it think you assertion that this is the "most orthodox Protestant view" is both incorrect and misleading. He sure has done a great job of expessing a view that you and he share. For that much, I thank him for his input. I also think that he's done a great job defending his thoughts -- which, as you note, reflects an "orthodox Protestant view". Of course you agree with it. Why wouldn't you?You both have concluded that the Pauline writings were written with the specific intention of damning those that do not believe in Christ -- so that Christ's glory may be revealed.Many other Christians disagree to some extent with this view though. I've pointed to many denominations that do not think this is what Paul is saying -- because they all agree in one form or another that people who do not believe in Christ can nonetheless be saved by Christ.For example, Catholics like myself believe in Purgatory. Baptists believe in an Age of Accountability. Many other protestant groups believe that Christ saves those that do no know him by virtue of various interpretations of what is more commonly known as Natural Law. The United and Unitarian churches tend to accept some kind of Universal Grace (sometimes by Christ as God and sometimes just by God as God) that effectively saves all people -- and that there is no such thing as hell. And Mormons tend to believe in some form of universal salvation, even allowing the baptism of the dead in order to allow a lost one into their Latter Day fold.I still maintain that many Christians are either directly or indirectly saying that "our own" faith doesn't save us -- because that would be works righteousness. It is Christ's faith that saves us. He is the one who is faithful and true, not us. More specifically, Paul (and many other apostles I might add) continually and repeatedly focusses on how Christ is alive in us by the Holy Spirit.We both know that we simply cannot do anything by our own power -- and that it is the grace of God by Christ that enables us to do anything good in Gods eyes. Consequently, "faith" itself is a gift from God as well -- which means that this too is not of our "own power" but from God himself by the Holy Spirit.We can't even say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit. Sure. But I wouldn't claim Legend is the winner in doing so.Just sayin' This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-27-2005 12:11 PM

Does anyone feel that I've dealt unfairly with Legend or Faith here?I admit that I have not minced any words debating them -- often to the point of being very sarcastic and gruff -- and have often called them on their assumptions. But I sincerely believe that the points I made have merit -- and that I have backed them up with much research within the Scriptures and Church history.What Faith and I don't agree on is whether the Pauline writings were written with the specific intention of damning those that do not believe in Christ. I specifically disagree with the "assumption" that "Paul is unambiguously saying in Romans that no one can be saved by deeds of the law -- or only by faith in Jesus for that matter."As I quoted and outlined above, I think that Paul was warning self-rightoeous Christians about the danger of thinking too highly of themselves. More specifically, he was repeatedly pointing out that it is Christ who is doing the work in us -- and that we could do nothing unless Christ was moving us to do so.So, for example, within the Pauline passages, whenever he notes that it is only through Christ that we are saved, his admonition is not so much about stating that non-Christians are damned to hell. Rather, in my opinion anyway, I think it is more accurate to say that he is warning his Christian brethren about falling into the same temptation that the adversary himself did -- the hubris of thinking that we have somehow achieved these glorius things without God.I think, based on my analysis of various denominational positions, church history, and a detailed examination of Scriptures, that I've presented an extremely valid alternative to the position being advanced by Faith and Legend. I've never said that their position is wrong. I've only demonstrated that the Pauline passages can be interpreted in other ways that do not necessarilly point toward damnation for non-believers -- but instead warns against conceit for the beleivers themselves lest they fall into the adversary's trap.jar? Phatboy? Monk? I'm listening if anyone thinks that I've gone too far and am certainly willing to admit I'm sorry for doing so. Could jar, Phatboy, Monk or someone else who participated in this thread give me some feedback?I tend to think that Faith and Legend are simply upset because I've actually presented a valid alternative to their interpretation -- and used Scriptural references at that. But I admit that I could be wrong.Edit: for reference, I think that message 214 really strikes at the heart of their assertions. It's very long, but I think it captures the central focus of Faith's and Legend's argument and distills many of their points very well. At the very least, I think it seems to disprove that the Pauline passages can only be interpretted in the way they say they can.Edit: corrected spelling.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-27-2005 04:58 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-27-2005 04:58 PM

Faith, you certainly seem to enjoy making sweeping assertions about people in your own arguments, don't you?You're one of the people here at EvC who most persistently assume things and make negative generalizations about other people, their theologies, or even the sincerity of their faiths for that matter.I've taken the time to intensely research this, looking at it from multiple denominational angles, examining the Scriptures, exploring church history, examining other religion's thoughts, and ultimately praying and listening to that which I felt the Holy Spirit had to say on the matter.I have addressed all Legend's thoughts on the matter. Since you agree with him, then you should be able to comment on them. This is probably even more true since it's very possible that you could both share the same kind of all-purpose protestant background.

Actually, I was formerly Lutheran (conservative bodies within the Canadian region). And I have thought a lot about the Reformation and its implications.For the record, I still believe that the congregation I formerly belonged to were very loving people led by the Spirit in many ways. It was actually a very difficult transition because even though I no longer belived as my former Lutheran brethren believed, I still thought of them as family -- and I still keep in touch with some of them despite my switch.All in all though, my transition from Lutheran to Catholic was almost solely an issue of various doctrines which I felt the conservative Lutheran church were in error on. I had already concluded many thoughts which, after further investigation, were more closely identified with Roman Catholicism even while I was Lutheran.For example, Luther himself never questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary. It appears to be later Reformers (including later Lutherans after Melancthon) which were determined to remove this teaching from the church.There's a lot more to my conversion than this, and I would be very willing to discuss this further in another thread if you desire. But, for the sake of honesty, that's how it was for me.I still miss some of them today because it was a very small congregation and we were like family in many ways. Converting over to a much larger church were one can eailly disappear in the large masses is still sometimes difficult even to this day. Nonetheless, I had to follow my convictions and follow where I felt the Holy Spirit was leading me -- even if it meant a painful yet agreeable separation from them.That's basically it in a nutshell.PS: I am working on very careful answers to your questions. I am going to try to explain them patiently as I feel the Spirit reveals them -- many of which I feel the Spirit has already revealed but need to be expressed carefully so as to not entice any misunderstanding. The answers will probably be coming up tomorrow sometime after church. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-28-2005 11:59 PM

And, for the record, I thank you for responding. No. I think you and Legend are wrong to claim that Paul is unambiguously teaching salvation by faith alone and that no other understanding of his text is even possible in light of his words.I thought I had made this clear that I accept your claim that your understanding could be "the" valid understanding of what Paul might be teaching in those passages.What I think you and Legend are wrong about is that this is the "only" way that these Pauline pssages could be properly understood. Yes. I think this is an important part of what he's getting at. When I quote and go through the Romans passage in question, I'll demonstrate it as the Spirit allows. Yes and no. This is only a small fraction of the Scriptural passages that I've already noted which (as I understand them) lead me to to this conclusion.I've also alluded to the fact that the development of the Scriptures has been (as I understand them) a dialectic of divine inspirations from the Holy Spirit and that the objects of these divine inspirations has often orginated from many things aside from Scripture -- including other ancient religions (which contained a trace of the original revelation of God to man), and nature itself (which the Scriptures themselves repeatedly state that God can be perceived by).Expressed simply, if the Holy Spirit could allow traces of the Judeo-Christian revelation to be held in reserve within pagan religions until Moses "ratified" the existing body of ancient evidences for primitive monotheism, then I don't see why God would ignore this same evidence as expressed within the concept of the "Sky God" still found in our modern day whenever primitive tribes are contacted.I agree that the Scriptures are the final authority on what God has to say (even for Catholics to some extent since even we admit that whatever is revealed must not contradict Scriptures). But I do not agree that God has only spoken and revealed himself through the Scriptures -- and I think that God still clearly reveals himself
though nature and even other religions where applicable. Yes. And as I explain it below, I think you will see that these thoughts easily mesh themselves with the Romans passage in question. For the sake of a quick reference, I'll reproduce the Romans passage here though (as I go through this message I'll point things out as I "read" them and summarize them in their entirety at the end). This entire passage, which Legend himself pointed out, and you both have repeatedly asked me to comment on, clearly aligns itself with the concept of exactly what I was saying before: that Paul was warning self-righteous Christians about the danger of thinking too highly of themselves. I didn't think that I had to point this
out because, since you and Legend are both persistently claiming that Paul is unambiguously teaching something, I thought that you would both be familiar enough with these Scriptural passages to make the connection yourselves.I'll discuss this distinction more below. However, for the sake of this discussion, let's also reproduce the other passage of Romans in question: Before I can even comment on this I have to note that I probably do not agree with you and Legend in regards to the reasons why the Law was brought about in the first place. I don't think the Law was ever given to allow the Israelites to be forgiven by God solely by their obedience to the Law. The Israelites were never considered righteous before God because they simply sacrificed things and obeyed the Law. In other words, I think the Law was given for the express reason of
revealing the Christ when he came.Being more specific, the Law seems to be a very direct stage in his covenant relationship with humanity that was specifically designed to preserve the seed of the Messiah (with very harsh penalties I might add) so that Christ would be guaranteed to arive in the "fullness of time". In this regard, to some extent anyway, the faith of many Israelites mattered very little so long as they actually performed their duties before God. Although God certainly was judging their hearts when the Israelites participated in these covenant relationships, and many heroes of the faith did believe strongly, God would nonetheless bring forth the righteousness of his son via the
Law even if they didn't actually believe. At the most basic level, simple obedience was all that was required -- and obedience would guarantee the coming of the Messiah.I think that God established this very direct covenant relationship because, roughly some time around Abraham, humanity seems to be displaying a nearly total falling away from the basic knowledge of the True God. As I noted before, the most ancient religious works do show some forms or concepts of God which are very similar to our Judeo-Christian God.To recap some previous examples, in the Rig-Veda, the most ancient of the Hindu sacred books, traces of a primitive monotheism are clearly shown. The Deity is called "the only existing being" who breathed, calmly self-contained, in the beginning before there was sky or atmosphere day or night, light or darkness. This being is not the barren philosophical entity found in the later Upanishads, for he is called "our Father", "our Creator", omniscient, who listens to prayers.Likewise, long ago before the introduction of Buddhism from India and the advent of Taoism, the Chinese believed in Shang Ti, a God so great that no images were to be made to represent it and the one true God who made the heavens, the earth, and all that is in both. This supreme god ruled over lesser gods of the sun, the moon, the wind, the rain, and other natural forces and places. Shang-Ti also regulated human affairs as well as ruling over the material universe.Consequently, as you and I have both noted, concepts like this bear a striking resemblance to our Judeo-Christian God. Even during the time of Abraham himself, a man appears on the scene, a man radically removed from the Israelite's ancestry to the point that he could make no claim to having some kind of lineage to the Hebrews themselves -- and yet he worships the "God Most High" as recorded in Scriptures as follows: Oddly, here we see a great man who, while not being a Hebrew, still nonetheless not only knows the God Most High but also goes one step further and presents a "meal" in order to "bless" Abraham (something which many Christians ackowledge as a prefiguring of the Communion meal around 3,000 years before Christ even revealed it). Melchizedek even seems to accept a "tithe" much like what is later developed in the Mosaic Law.Paul himself touches on this in Hebrews as follows: Some have made a spectacle of the phrases "...without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever." Some seem to think that Melchizedek is "living forever" or something to that effect. But I think this is simply saying that Melchizedek was a very great man who knew God even though he didn't belong directly to the Hebrew ancestry.To state this succinctly, I think the Hebrews were chosen at this specific time in hisroty because the basic knowledge of the True God was becoming overlayed with pagan associations and pantheons that did inded contradict God's existence -- even attributing to animals, objects, and philosophies various qualities that belonged to God.Coming back to the passage of Romans in question... ...I can see where things could be interpretted very differently from how Legend and you understand it.For example, Legend has been quoted as saying the following: I tend to agree with this -- with the qualifier that Paul was stressing the danger of self-righteousness (as I pointed out in bold in that very passage). I tend to agree with this -- with the qualifier that Paul was stressing the danger of self-righteousness (as I pointed out in bold in that very passage). There is where we disagree to some extent. I tend to see this as a two-edged sword.Following the previous line of reasoning, I'd say that Paul is concluding that many Christians are in danger of self-righteousness when they think they're doing it on their own. The whole point of him laying out these theological nuggets is to establish that Christ is the Savior and (following many other thoughts expressed by him
and other apostles and disciples) that no one can add to this salvation in any way, shape, or form.In other words, I don't see Paul's words here being like a judge before a trial stating what level of evidence is needed to find a defendant guilty. If we're going to stick with the "trial analogy", it's more like a judge before a trial stating what level of evidence is needed to find a defendant innocent -- and evidence of Christ in their lives is THE standard that removes guilt.Likewise, I don't think it means that the defendant will necessarilly be found guilty at all, it just outlines what is needed for one's innocence in Christ to be established.Or, as the later part of the Romans passage states, "There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished -- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." As I see it, Paul is clearly stating that God is the one who justifies our faith in Jesus, not us.Legend believes that the reason that Romans 2:6-7 can only be read as a declaration of standards is because he feels that Paul makes "very clear" that these standards cannot be met by any man. To this extent I agree: using the trial analogy, these standards cannot be met by man. However, Legend also feels that since no one can be justified by deeds of law, and that no one is righteous enough to do only good, then this by necessity means that all are effectively damned and going to hell for not believing in Christ. He draws these conclusions from his readings of Romans 3:9-20 with an emphatic emphasis on Romans 3:20 specifically. But he stresses the case for guilt whereas I emphasize the case for innocence.Legend's conclusions are stated as follows: My conclusion is that: Consequently, strongly mixed into Pauls' message is a persistent admonition not to be too judgemental, even in the very passage that Legend himself refered to. My belief is that "those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality" are doing so because the Holy Spirit is drawing them closer to God. It doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is indwelling them in the same "permanent" sense that we Christians are believed to have the Holy Spirit. However, it does reveal, in my
opinion, that if they had been presented with the gospel, they would gladly accept it and recognize it as truth. This meshes quite well with many of the thoughts that Paul has been persistently saying in my belief. If that is so, then so is Romans 2:1-7. Actually, this is where we disagree.What Paul says in Romans 2:1-7 seems to easily fall within the context of Paul warning other Christians about self-righteousness. Consequently, since the latter passages in Romans 3:21-26 are a natural progression from the previous thoughts found in Romans 2:1-7, it naturally follows that Paul is still very likely speaking within the context of the dangers of self-righteousness -- and not by necessity convicting those that do not believe. Yes. But I don't think that you've applied this knowledge to its proper extent. When Christians claim that they are saved by faith, I think that they are overlooking that Christ is the source of their faith.Don't misunderstand me. I'm not claiming that Christians don't know that their faith is a gift from God via Christ through the Holy Spirit. That's not what I'm saying.What I'm saying is that many Christians do not realize that Christ "living" in them is what enables them to believe in the first place. In other words (as I understand it), if we believe in Christ, it's because the Spirit of Christ is indwelling them and believing on their behalf. Or, stated differently, believing in Christ is visible evidence that Christ is alive in them.For example, think of the woman who was suffering from the issue of bleeding for several years followed by the young daughter that was raised from the dead. .
There are two things that have stood out in my mind while reading this, both are related to the saving nature of Christ's faith.First of all, the woman who been bleeding for several years had received power from Christ. In my opinion this power which had left him was the saving faith that she required to believe in the first place. Or, stated differently, Christ was allowed to believe on her behalf -- and this was manifested by her immediately being
healed, something which he felt moving from him to her.Second of all, Jairus' daughter was dead. As such, it seems to me that she was incapable of believing. The whole reason that the young twelve year old girl was raised was because Christ believed -- not Jairus, nor Jairus' wife, nor even the three apostle's for that matter. In other words, when these things happen, the gift of
faith is imparted into them by virtue of Christ's faith because the Spirit has revealed the truth and Christ believes in our openness to what the Spirit has promised. I may not be explaining this properly, but I think there is a much deeper connection going on here - one that simply cannot be fully expressed with the phrase "saved
by faith".When miracles, salvation, or other blessed things attested to God happen, I believe it's because God has sent his gifts in various ways to those people who encounter them. In other words, God was always going to do it. What is not so definite is whether the receiver of the gift would be open to the prompting of the Holy Spirit in
the first place. Stated differently, God has fore-ordained the paths that we should walk in by his Spirit. Unfortunately we all stray from the "straight and narrow path" so to speak, with some straying much further than others.Whenever someone walks in the Spirit according to the path that God has determined, it's because they are being lead by the Spirit to do so. Ergo, even when someone has done something good in God's eyes, it's still because the Holy Spirit was at work in them -- and not because of their own faith or works or anything else along those self-righteouslines for that matter. Or, stated more bluntly, we can do NOTHING to earn our salvation. God has already worked out what we are to do in advance from the very beginning -- and the best we can is nothing except being submissive to the Spirit's prompting.Some might think that this means that we're nothing more than puppets being pulled by the strings of God's Spirit. Some might even perceive humanity as nothing more than robots fore-ordained to either heaven or hell well before we were even born. However, I disagree. Consider the "god breathed" nature of the Scriptures and I think you might start to grasp my view on this. Most of us agree that the Scriptures indicate that they were themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit. But many of us, in my opinion, do not think about exactly what this "inspiration" by the Holy Spirit means.In II Timothy 3:16-17 we read, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."Similarly, in Acts 1:16 we read the following, "...the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus."Finally, most Christians are aware of the following passage: As Doug Beaumont points out, the Scriptural definition of "inspiration" differs from that of modern usage -- i.e., an "inspired" musician or an "inspirational" teacher for example. The Greek word we translate inspire (theopneustos) means to "breath out" in II Peter 1:21 or to "bear along" in Acts 27:15 like a ship at sail. Both of these illustrations are crucial to understanding the Bible's inspiration.The Scrptures are a divine and human book, just as Christ was divine and human at the same time. The authors of the Scriptures were not dictation machines, although some parts of Scripture are actual quotes from God. The authors personalities shaped what they wrote much as a rudder may influence the direction of a ship. It will not change the general direction that the boat is traveling when in a strong wind without cutting off the supply of air that is moving it. Rather, the writers were superintended in what they wrote by God so that they wrote exactly what he wanted them to write. And, even then, the writers could reject the motion of the Spirit at any time if they so choose to do so. They still retained their own intellects during this experience. I suspect that many times the authors wrote down things, things which they probably didn't even fully understand . In a similar way, but much more fallibly so, we too are moved by the Holy Spirit to believe, to pray, to love, to hope, and so many other other things for Christ by Christ. However, we are given much more freedom to accomplish these ends -- so much so that no two people will arrive at the same destination by extactly the same path. Whereas one man may have to scrape from poverty another man may have riches and luxeries beyond compare. Whereas one woman may have to
contend with crippling disabilities another woman may have perfect physical health. Whereas one person may be an orphan the other person may be born into a family of twelve. While I would disagree that there are many paths to God, I would nonetheless concede that there are many paths to Christ -- Christ who is true God and true man.Bearing all these things in mind, if we fail to respond to the Holy Spirit's prompting, then yes we are fully held accountable for it -- and God knows exactly how much we can be held accountable for in each culture and place. The Scriptures themselves say in this regard: Clearly, as I beleive the Spirit has revealed it, saying that God will damn someone to hell for not accepting the gospel message even though they never even heard the gospel message seems to strongly contradict the qualities of God displayed in I Corinthians 10:13. This Scripture teaches us a powerful principle. God will not allow
anything to come into our lives that we are not capable of withstanding if we are lead by his Spirit. However, if we do actually do as the Holy Spirit guides us to do, even then we cannot take credit for it (or become self-righteous in our "ability" to do God's will) because it was God who doing it in the first place. No problem. And I'll repsect what you have to say in doing this -- even if we do not agree. I admit that I was gruff and sarcastic -- although I do think that you can be insulting too (even if you're not aware of how you come across to others). My objective was to give you a taste of your own medicine. Although I'm not 100% sure, I don't think you would have listened otherwise.As far as my argument is concerned, the method is being refined right now. Well...it seems to me that you are both saying that there is no other way to read them -- going well beyond the assumption that it is "pretty obvious" what Paul is saying.You've claimed that many use fleshly or carnal thoughts to understand the Scriptures, even implying that I was doing exactly that.Legend has gone on record saying that Paul is "very clear". He claimed that he didn't persist they can only be translated in a certain way -- yet he repeated what he felt Paul was "unambiguously saying" in Romans.I agree with Legend that no one can be saved by deeds of the law. However, I also maintain that even our own faith doesn't save us -- only Christ can save us and "our own faith", as I understand it, may have very little to do with our salvation in the end.In other words, I believe our confession of faith is more or less visible evidence to each other that we believe in Christ -- but that Christ doesn't require it to know if we believe in him or not. Faith, the orthodox Christian position is that Christ is THE savior.Beyond that, things begin to severely fragment within Christianity to the point that I doubt you can fairly claim that THE orthodox position is what Legend's been excellently presenting.Furthermore, you and I both know that Legend has searched the Scriptures intently for a reason. People do not read the Scriptures to the level he has for strictly leisurely reasons. He's evidently been called by the Spirit in one way or another. Many people are, even if they latter reject that calling.My previous sarcasm in his direction, cruel or not, was specifically intended to remind him of that calling. The fact that he persisted so long in a thread which he considered merely "philosophical hypothesizing" seems to speak volumes in itself. See Faith. Here again you are doing it -- labelling anyone that doesn't see it as you and Legend do as "potential heretics" being suspect of misreading the Scriptures, or possibly guilty of cultic reading, or potentially guilty of some of kind of individual idiosyncratic reading.Stop doing that! Do you even realize what you're implying and how insulting that kind of talk is?All that I said is that there were other Christians that did not agree with Legend's interpretation of the Romans passage. That alone is sufficient to prove that it is not THE orthodox position. No I don't. The whole concept of Sola Scriptura seems to be a fundamentally Protestant doctrine developed mainly in the Renaissance period with traces shown in the late Middle Ages but more formally developed in its modern sense within the early Enlightenment Period.Even when St. Augustine defended the Scriptures, he never claimed that the Scriptures were the sole means of knowing God. He only insisted that any further revelation within Scripture could not contradict what was formerly yet clearly understood in Scripture. In other words, although he accepted the Scriptures as the final authority, he never denied that God could not be revealed via other means outside the Scriptures.Can you prove from the Scriptures alone that the Scriptures are the only reliable means of knowing Christ's will?I will continue with this discourse later.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-29-2005 05:57 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-29-2005 05:59 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-29-2005 10:58 PM

I'm not claiming that the Scriptures aren't the best source for understanding God. I am, however, questioning the idea that the Scriptures alone reveal God.However, for the sake of this dicussion, I will attempt to reveal what I mean as the Spirit allows me to do so. Likewise, I do believe that my noting other denominations does indicate that many Christians do not by necessity agree that the passages in Roman cannot be understood in different lights. It's not irrelevant if it clearly demonstrates that other denominations understand what Pauls means in Romans differently than you and Legend. I'm not saying it's "evidence" that your understanding of the Pauline passages in question is specifically wrong. It is, however, "evidence" that your understanding of the Pauline passages in question are not accepted to the extent that they are "universallly" speaking a message that can only fairly be understood in one way.As I said before: How does it not?The catholic church teaches that everyone who goes to purgatory goes to heaven, but that Christ is at work in the purification of the soul prior to its entry into heaven. Well, Pope Benedict XVI might have something to say about that: So according to Pope Benedict's way of explaining the catholic belief, as we are drawn out of this life and into direct union with Christ, his fiery love and holiness burns away all the dross and impurities in our souls and makes us fit for life in the glorious, overwhelming light of God's presence and holiness. In other words, Christ does the work -- not us.You would be aware that not only Catholics believe in this final sanctification; the Eastern Orthodox do as well, as do Orthodox Jews. Because the belief of purgatory was held by pre-Christian Jews, post-Christian Jews, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox, nobody thought of denying it until the Protestant Reformation, and only Protestants disagree with it now.If you're looking for more information on this, then check out these sites:Error 404 - Not Found
Error 404 - Not Found Uh...yes they do -- a large majority of them do anyway. I know Baptist friends that have explained this in-depth to me. But a quick search on-line reveals the following:http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Baptist or again here...http://www.teachersparadise.com/...kipedia/b/ba/baptist.html or again here...Baptist So, while there may be smaller bodies within the Baptist community (such as yourself perhaps?) that reject this doctrine, it still remains a central dogma amongst many Baptists in the world today.By the way, is is safe to assume to that you're a Calvinistic Baptist now? I've never said that all Presbyterian bodies believe in "universal salvation". I also pointed toward the concept of Natural Law, which you can read about here...http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/anabaptists/13-2Rush.htm. I'm sure that they do have "liberal" and "conservative" factions much like all churches do. Regardless, many of their theological statements nonethless contradict the Pauline assertions that you've made, again continuing in the tradition of Luther and the Reformers. It's only irrelevant because you've already made up you mind that it counts for nothing.I will repeat this: I'm not trying to argue by a "majority vote" that your "understanding" of the Pauline passages is incorrect.Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.Although I've explained why I feel it isn't correct, I will also note that my including these denominational facts was proof positive that your understanding of the Pauline passages was by no means the "only" way one could understand them -- and to this extent, they've demonstrated this fact clearly for anyone to see. I already have. However, I'm also pointing out your own underlying assumptions in your own understanding of the Pauline passages in doing so. In other words, you are presenting your own understanding of the Pauline passages and claiming them to be THE correct way to understand them -- yet you yourself have made no solid attempt to defend your position except to basically say the what Paul means is "self-evident" within his own words.I've already pointed out that Paul was more than likely refering to his Christian brethren who were in danger of becoming self-righteous. I've done this many times using Scriptural passages which easilly align themselves to this revelation. I've explained my thoughts on the reasons for why God established the Mosaic Law in the first place -- to reveal the Christ. I've also demonstrated why I feel that no one can be saved except for by Christ himself through God. In other words, the whole point of the Law, from my understanding anyway, was to reveal the Messiah himself. People were never justified because they obeyed the Law. They were justified by the one who the Law pointed to -- Christ Jesus. Faith, you weren't even aware that many Baptists do believe in some kind of age of accontability. You also didn't even understand the nature of the catholic understanding of purgatory -- something which the eastern orthodox and some orthodox jews hold in common to some extent. You didn't even grasp that I already said that many protestant groups continue in the line of Luther's Natural Law, essentially implying a kind of salvation for those that did not ever hear about Christ.*sigh*I am explaining it now.THE DENOMINATIONAL REFERENCES DO NOT PROVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PAULINE PASSAGES IS WRONG.THE DENOMINATIONAL REFERENCES PROVE THAT YOUR CLAIM THAT THE PAULINE PASSAGES CAN ONLY BE UNAMBIGOUSLY
UNDERSTOOD ONE WAY IS WRONG. This isn't merely a semantic point since it is Christ who indwells us by the Holy Spirit and believes on our behalf. We are not saved by our own faith. We are saved because Christ believes for us and on our behalf.This is, I feel, a very crucial part of what Paul was saying over and over and over again.For example, Romans 8:26-28 states quite clearly, "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will. And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."Certainly those that do not know Christ can still hear the call of the Holy Spirit in the direction of Christ with groans that words cannot express. Even if they cannot see him or do not know him, they can still feel this emptyness and longing for something more -- crying out for something greater than themselves that remains elusive for reasons totally outside the scope of their limited cultural experience.To be continued...

Maybe in your Calvinist Baptist congregation they see it that way. But your denomination doesn't speak for all Baptists. I already pointed out and quoted the links which explained this all in detail. I already quoted the sources which explained this Faith. Consequently, they have used it in exactly the way I said they used it, that some are saved without making a conscious profession of faith because they cannot be held accountable for their actions.What are you not understanding here? Look...if you're saying that you don't agree with this branch of Baptist doctrine, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you that it's accurate. However, if you're trying to say that many Baptists don't teach this doctrine as I've explained it, that Baptists only teach the Calvinist Baptist version of the "Believer's Baptism", then you're simply wrong -- because it's exactly what they're saying.I already posted one link: So here, as I've pointed out once again, the Calvinist Baptist's "believer's baptism" upholds the ordinance performed after a profession acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, yet rejects the idea of an "age of accountability" state of grace like many other Baptists actually do believe.You can disagree with their theology all you want. It doesn't change that fact that many Baptists outside your "particular form" of Baptist beliefs do believe that a "person who is not mentally or emotionally capable of discerning their sins is generally believed to be in a state of grace and not subject to hell upon death." Yes, and I've stated that your understanding that Catholics only believe purgatory is for Christians is wrong. I've already provided you with two links that explained it in detail -- which you apparently didn't even bother to read. If you want to find out more about this, then follow these links.Error 404 - Not Found
Error 404 - Not FoundMore specifically, you can do a search for Cardinal Francis Arinze and explore some of his doctrinally conservative thoughts on this. He was, after all, the President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue in Rome, one of the highest positions in the Vatican collegiate.Page Not FoundBut, if you're looking for a more specific example, Susan Tassone founder of, "The Apostolate of the Holy Souls in Purgatory" has quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church and commented appropirately: However, just as Cardinal Arinze himself has said, Catholics beleive that people who rebelliously refuse to believe that Jesus is Lord and who do not yield to him don't go to Purgatory. They go to hell. I don't know if I can make it much clearer than this for you. I'll explain it later when I have a chance.Edit: Natural Law is considered the body of laws which govern the nature of things; the natural moral law refers to proper human action by people.While I don't agree with many of the statements presented in these links below, you can check this out to get a start on understanding the development of what many modern Lutherans base their ideas about "natural law" on:Blogger link shortenedConsequently, I'm not trying to suggest that Luther was suggesting that unbaptized baies could go to heaven. He didn't actually believe that, although many modern Lutheran's have taken Luther's concepts of natural law and interpretted Luther's thoughts so as to be inclusive of this idea.More to the point, Luther taught that baptized infants were capable of "believing in God", albeit faintly and primitively as a nursing child would believe in their mother for example. A basic desire or thirst for God was evident even if they could not express it in words. In this sense, he felt that it was justifiable to baptize infants and that they would surely be saved based on their childlike faith.In this sense, because he felt that "natural law" reflected God's laws before they were revealed by Moses, Luther felt that this basic law written on the "hearts of all people" was sufficient to reflect upon the nature of sin and therefore reveal their need for a savior -- even if the heart was that of a new-born infant.Does that make it clearer?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-30-2005 02:17 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-30-2005 02:20 PMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-30-2005 03:48 PM

I'll get back to the other thoughts later. However, this was one area that I thought I should clarify quickly. Exactly right. ...here we go again. Yes, if you're looking at it from that negative perspective, then of course all the law can do is condemn.However, if you're looking at it from a positive perspective, then you would also see that the law is perfectly capable of pointing out our need for the Messiah. In other words, in a more proper understanding, you would see that the law is perfectly capable of saving us by pointing out our sins and thus leading us in the direction of Christ. I've never said yo didn't. It's the implications of the final objective of the Law itself that I'm debating. As noted above, I agree. Which comes back to a deeper mystery than what you're willing to acknowledge. If the Israelites were saved by their faith, then this requires a cognitive process very similar to that which is involved in our very actions. Whether walking or talking, thinking or believing, this still implies a human effort to accomplish the goal, which negates any strict interpretation of one being saved by grace.In other words, if the human mind must work to acknowledge Christ in order to be saved, then it is also the human mind that is "working" to save itself and salvation is not solely the work of the Holy Spirit. This contradicts the clear Scriptural passages of Paul which teach that salvation is exclusively the work of God -- and not based on our "works" at all.

The ambiguity lies in the assertion of whether this curse results in eternal damnation or not. I've already explained how the Pauline passages did not by necessity need to be read to imply this.Furthermore, what people see as a curse is usually a blessing in disguise.For example, many people believe that: But that's not what actually happened. Whether one sees the account in the Garden of Eden as merely symbolic and allegorical language of some kind of literal event, the message remains the same: If Adam and Eve had partaken in the tree of life in their sinful state, they would have effectively been trapped forever in their sins and would have had no chance for redemption -- even the redemption crucified on the cross for our sakes would not have absolved this.Similarly, when the Israelites came under the curse of the Law, God did not place it on them so as to lead them to death if they disobeyed.More to the point, when the Israelites came under the curse of the Law, God placed it on them so as to protect them from destroying their own chance of salvation which would be found in Christ's death at the "appropriate time". Correct. Our need of the Messiah is the Messiah's possession of us. Exactly. Pointing out our sins and leading us in the direction of Christ is Christ drawing near to us. Faith, I've already said that we do agree on many things. However, what we do not agree on is that the Law was established to condemn those that have not lived up to it to hell. This is more than a semantic issue when, because of our differences of opinion, you conclude that it means that all non-believers are going to endless torment whereas I see it as Paul chastising fellow believers with little to no intent to condemn the whole populace of non-believers to endless torment.This is not merely an issue of semantics. It's a matter of attempting to discern an accurate understanding of God's grace as the Spirit allows. It's also an issue which has turned Legend right off from Christianity. uhhhh.... What? Like when you accused me of using a carnal or fleshly interpretation among other things such as possibly being deluded or subject to some hertical views? Sure it is.This is one of the major sticking points of Protestantism as I understand it (and have experienced it).As Jaroslav Pelikan notes, there is no evidence that Luther as a young man considered himself anything but a faithful son of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet he was already puzzling over questions that later led to the Reformation.These questions did not deal with the external structure of the church or its moral values,all of which Luther considered important but not vital. Luther concerned himself with the meaning of the Christian Gospel: To Luther, this was not a problem to be settled by discussion of human merit in relation to divine grace. It was an intensely personal problem that affected Luther himself.For Luther, again as noted by Jaroslav Pelikan, the life of the church, especially the ordered life of the monastery, provided remedies for those individuals who were troubled by their relation to the judgement of an angry God.For example, individuals could say more prayers, fast more strictly, and even whip themselves more mercilessly. Finally, as Luther felt, they would achieve the certain knowledge that God regarded them favorably.Luther actually tried all these methods, but none of them worked for him. In fact, the harder he tried to please God, the more he realized that he was depedning not on God, but on his own efforts Again, as Jaroslav Pelikan notes, the answer for many of these questions came to Luther in 1508 or 1509 while he was studying the Book of Psalms and the Epistles of Paul. Luther concluded that God's favor is not a "prize" to be won, but a gift. Only when individuals stop trying to achieve God's favor by their own abilities and accomplishments can they understand the grace of God. God justifies individuals -- that is, makes them righteous before him -- not through their moral goodness or faithfulness to duty, but because of his kindness.God's kindness, Luther believed, was given to the world in the life, death and Resurrection of Christ Jesus. This was actually the meaning of justification solely by faith in God's grace, the doctrine for which Luther became famous. Which pretty much indicates that you've already made up your mind -- or at least have closed your mind to any other alternative.The point is this Faith: even if you claim that you are justified by your "faith", you are still claiming to have "accomplished" something independently of the Lord in order to gain your salvation. I state with clear conviction that we can do nothing good except by the Holy Spirit -- so that the Lord may have all the glory. This is to say, if there is faith found in us, it is because Christ is present in us and believing on our behalf.In fact, all the we have to do is "nothing", and the Spirit will guide us as he sees fit and lead us to do the good works that the Lord has fore-ordained that we should walk in.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-30-2005 07:37 PM

I admit that I'm gulty of long messages. But when it comes to important things like this, I'm like a dog trying to get every little scrap of marrow from the theological bones so to speak.I see that you've simply agreed to disagree on many points, which is fine to me. However, I wouldn't necessarilly claim victory in doing so.I've thought, prayed, and researched a lot about these questions and I'm sharing them as I feel the Spirit explains them. If you do not wish to explore them to the level that I've looked into them, then fine.I for one, however, am not interested in the same old dried-up sound-bites and buzz-words that typically accompany some of the more shallow internet diatribes.I apologize in advance. However, if you want to discuss this with me, then be prepared for more of the same. If we're only limited to 300 posts per thread, then I'm not holding back on this one.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-30-2005 07:52 PM

Thanks for the input Monk. You've bascially summed my own position very well and clarified many points in doing so.

While I obviously don't agree with schrafinator's perception of God as being cruel, vindictive and otherwise lacking, I still actually think schrafinator raises an interesting point.For example, is a person condemned for rejecting Christ if the Christian trying to "convert" him has him strung up on a rack, torturing him until he says,"I believe."?I realize this sounds like a cruel question -- it's probably one of the most cruel examples that I could think of. But it also touches on an issue that I've been praying over very much and is related to this subject: the issue of the Christian's duty to witness, and the method by which they witness their faith, and the amount of love used to do so.For example, Jude 1:22-24 clearly states: I do think that the mentality of the message given by the person who witnesses their faith can directly impact how the receiver receives the Gospel message. If the message is broadcast with hatred, then the receivers will most likely reject it.Likewise, in another example, if we force our faith onto others harshly, and they reject it (like above), the Lord's name is then blasphemed because of our actions -- not theirs. In these instances, it seems to me that God wouldn't hold accountable someone who rejected the Christian faith. I think he'd be more interested in what the "witness" did to the unbeliever to push them away from Christ.This is to say, I think that Christ saves people according to the faith that they would have had in him if they had been presented with the gospel message.In particular, I beleive that Christ, who is by the Scriptures own admission omnipotent in his glorified state, could examine the hearts and minds of any person to see how they "would have acted" if the situation were different.I personally do not beleive this to be a vague statement which bears no resemblance to the various Judeo-Christian schools of thought. For example, the Scriptures themselves seem to disply a very similar message as follows in Hebrews 4:12-14: The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. As such, it seems to me that God could easily observe the multitude of different possibilities that lay before each individual human being and make it as if were something that actually happened and we could be held accountable for.Or, as the Scriptures again say in Romans 4:17: In this sense, it seems to me that God is capable of determining the faith that one would have had "as though they were" placed in the right cicumstances.Consequently, when we look around the world, we do see glimpses of the gospel message everywhere -- even in nature whenever animals engage in traits of self-sacrifice in order to continue their own species.Whenever some form of sacerdotal system requiring sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins appears, I think this reflects a basic pervasive knowledge of God's desire to reconcile humanity with the sacrifice of his son.I admit that the knowledge is dim, it is distorted, but it is still there no matter how distorted from God's will it might be.And, in regards to forgiveness (which is what this whole discussion eventually points to) Christ himself has said something very powerful concerning it. He actually connects love with faith, and points to them as being nearly the same thing: the ability to forgive.edit: corrected spellings.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-31-2005 12:00 PM

Faith, I admitted that this was probably the most extreme example that I could think of -- and no, I don't think this "generally" happens in North America.Yet, at the same time in other parts of the world, there is a greater and more violent disconnect in the sense that Christians are violently feuding over things, such as in Ireland for example, or in Rwanda where a very tragic genocide occured not that long ago in human history.The history of the church is rife with Christians persecuting non-believers in various ways. While I'm sure that most people are familiar with my own Catholic faith's actions in the past, I can also demonstrate where these things have happened in both Protestant and Orthodox circles too. That's not exactly true Faith, at least not all the time. I've already admitted that there is very little to no salvation in the eternal life of those who reject the gospel message from one who has lovingly presented it. And, for the record, I do believe that the majority of Christian witness is rather peaceful.However, there are aspects of this whole debate that can be placed under the banner of Christians persecuting others that do not agree with them.We both know full well what Christ said in John 15:18-25: Many Christians will read something like this and automatically assume that if someone rejects our message then it's because they're unwilling to heed the truth of the gospel. Or, stated more plainly, if one rejects us then they are rejecting the one who sent us in the first place.But that's not always true -- and you know that. Sometimes we do push our faith unto others, and in a very nasty way I might add too. Even if physical violence is not employed, the push can come in the form of poilitiking, psychological abuse, or even just outright bigotry.Even if other Christians don't agree with civil gay marriage for example, it doesn't mean they go out and beat the living shit out of them -- which has happened. Or, in the case of an abortion clinic, even if I'm strongly opposed to abortion, it still doesn't give me the mandate to bomb abortion clinics.So yeah, sometimes Christians are assholes, including myself by the way. We need to be very careful not to indirectly endorse the adversary's methods when being led by God's Spirit.So even though our Lord has said... ...we also need to keep in mind the words spoken by people like Ghandi who said something like... In other words, I think there is definitely a grey area in here that needs to be examined more carefully.Stephen Hand at TCR said the following and it made a lot of sense to me. In this sense, he's speaking of love for our enemies. Yes, but since we Christians are supposed to be considered "evidence" for God's existence, I do believe that this subject is fair game for discussion. In other words, if we are displaying characteristics that are inconsistent with the God we profess, then is that considered a valid reason for rejecting the God we've witnessed our faith in?I've actually touched on this subject already within this thread. I think it's any interesting topic and well within the confines of this discourse.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-31-2005 03:15 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-31-2005 03:17 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-31-2005 03:42 PM

Faith, I'm not trying to water down the gospel. I'm saying that one can warn someone of their eternal separation from God without preaching the fire and brimstone in the process.For example, if someone asks me what I think about sex outside of marriage, I'd say that I think it's wrong. More specifically, I'd express my conviction that I feel that this is something that God does not desire and that doing so could result in a permanent separation from his presence. If they asked me why, then I'd take the time to explain to them via the Scriptures why I felt this was so.I won't disagree with you that many simply look for reasons not to believe in God, specifically Christianity here in North America because of its fairly dominant influence. However, these same people are not always prejudiced against Christianity per se. Rather, they are simply against the concept of belief in general no matter what religion is presented.If they were to move to a different area and protest in such a way, it might involve them protesting...Islam (good luck to them if in Irag ),
Judaism (which may or may not have any effect),
Buddhism (which will probably have no effect since they'd generally say, "well...ok...")...or whatever religion is dominant in whatever region they relocate to.When someone levels a negative claim against Christianity, I at least try to listen to what they have to say.Who knows?Maybe God is trying to tell us something by their protests. Instead of off-handedly dismissing what they have to say, maybe we could benefit by listening to them.One thing I know for sure, ignoring them or lambasting them for not immediately believing what we say is not going to bring them any closer to Christ. And to this extent I think we have an obligation to listen and reply accordingly even if we ultimately don't agree with their final conclusion and eventually part ways.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-31-2005 06:26 PM

It was crashfrog that pointed out some claim that God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated, because to do so would eliminate the need for faith.While I agree with the concept that some aspects of God are currently beyond our ability to directly experience, I wouldn't go so far as to say that he is determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence. Furthermore, I don't think that simply believing that God exists necessarilly equals having faith in him.My participation in this discusion is primarilly targetted against the idea of God conceiling himself so as to generate "faith".Admittedly, this thread's taken a few refinements as it evolved from the OP. But I've tried really hard to keep it on-topic as time allows .