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

Ta da!! I declare Legend the winner of this thread!!He's made the best arguments and you've copped out.There is no reason in the world why he has to answer your question. It's off topic for starters.

Most of those quotes speak of believing ON him or IN him, not in what he taught. And although I'm sure you have a different idea of what the gospel is than I do, my idea is that it means faith in Jesus Christ.Jesus is God and we are to worship God. If you want scriptures on that I can produce them.

Well that's quite a tome, Mr. Ex. I can't deal with all of it right now. If you define everything a certain way I guess you can't help but win the argument. You want to call "Christian" whatever you call "Christian" and not what I call "Christian." That's what I call an impasse. Nowhere to go from here. One at least needs to agree on some basic terms and we don't.What Legend has been spelling out is the most orthodox Protestant view. He's been doing a great job of it. I know when it comes to supposed contradictions between Paul and Jesus and that sort of thing we are going to disagree completely, but he does an excellent job of presenting Protestant Pauline theology. I agree with it. There is no way you are going to convince me otherwise, so I don't know what there is to discuss any more. Shouldn't we just agree to disagree at such a point?

Please don't patronize me.Anybody who knows Protestant theology knows that we do not trust in our own faith but in God. We are saved BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH and the faith is the gift of God. No it is not Christ's faith that saves us, it is His grace that saves us, His gift, His forgiveness, His sacrifice, etc, not our faith, and not His faith whatever that means.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-27-2005 06:31 AM

OK by me to move to that thread, but I won't have time to post there until later today.I agree about Mr. Ex's dealings on this thread.

This is an answer to the first half of your very long post. At least this much of it seems to be reducible to a very few points: My answer is likewise reducible to a few points: I'll nevertheless go through the post, at least the first half of it, and answer in some detail as the points come up. I'm not reacting to your manner but to your method of argument -- although you do get pretty insulting in this post. I'm not sure either of us has said "there's no other way to read them" but we HAVE said it appears pretty obvious what Paul is saying, and that this is the orthodox reading. Weird to be on the same side as a guy who doesn't believe any of it but the fact is he's done an excellent job of presenting the position I agree with and consider to be THE orthodox position. In fact I haven't agreed so completely with anyone else on this site so far. Strange but true.I don't associate it with particular denominations myself so I don't understand your making such an issue of denomination. Perhaps this view can be generalized to the orthodox or conservative assemblies as opposed to the liberal churches, but there are both liberal and conservative groups of most of the mainstream denominations, with the exception perhaps of the Episcopalian/Anglican and Methodist, but even they have their conservative orthodox voices. Answering in terms of what people believe is not an answer to what Legend said. He is talking about "what Paul is unambiguously saying in Romans." It is irrelevant that people read Paul differently -- There are always heretics, there is every kind of misreading of the scriptures, every kind of cultic reading, every kind of individual idiosyncratic reading. You have to defend your reading FROM scripture to answer Legend. This again is irrelevant to the topic in question, which is what Paul means in Romans. How does Purgatory argue for this? Is that a new twist on the idea? I thought it referred to Christians who didn't quite live up to the Catholic standard, not to nonChristians -- a Vatican II development again perhaps? Baptists don't have the idea that children under an age of accountability are to be saved, quite the opposite, they believe that nobody is saved until they make a clear personal confession of faith with demonstrable conviction -- don't know where you get that idea. There are three or four different Presbyterian bodies, at least two of which are solidly orthodox and far from supporting any idea of universal salvation. The Episcopal tend to be liberal overall so they might believe as you are claiming, but I don't know, but they too have conservative factions on many of the controversial issues. The whole world might believe the same and all be wrong. Since when have numbers meant anything in Christian doctrine? Jesus himself said the way to life is narrow and few find it.So I'm going to skip most of the rest of what you say about how many supposedly agree with you as it's irrelevant. And you need to argue the point from the Pauline passages, not from who believes what. You are welcome to your view, but you haven't been defending it, just appealing to numbers of people you claim believe it -- and you are wrong about those even -- and otherwise just asserting it over and over. I did answer this in Message 217 Actually your point is a semantic one, not a real one. We ARE saved by our faith, but it is something given to us by God. Nothing we have that pleases God is from us, it is all from Him. Legend is right and I said the same thing myself in Message 150 which he quoted in Message 170. Paul starts out defining the basis on which God judges us all, in order to go on to argue that none of us can meet His requirements but in fact all stand condemned before Him, which leads Paul to the good news of the Gospel, which is that through the sacrifice of Christ those who believe on Him are saved from the condemnation of the Law.By the way, this is an example of a way you argue that seems devious, when you refuse to consider the point we are making and say you don't care why Paul is saying it. Why he is saying it is central to our argument and you can't just dismiss it that way. Well, technically it is a gift of God but actually we ARE saved by it. It is not something you can trump up the way you can do works that don't save. Alive in those who believe in Christ, not alive in anybody else, and we have the Holy Spirit because of our faith in Chirst. So our having the Holy Spirit is far from contradicting the idea that we are saved by faith. In fact the following passage you quote directly says we live "by faith in the Son of God," meaning we are saved by faith in Him. Yes and "acknowledg[ing] that Jesus is the Son of God" is having faith in Him. That's why we are given His Holy Spirit, because we believe, because we have faith in Him. I understand it better than you do, obviously. You quote passages that demonstrate the need for faith and claim they are not about the need for faith. It's already been understood and answered, and really, all you are doing in this whole argument is avoiding what Paul has clearly been shown to say in the first chapters of Romans. You claim he means something else than Legend and I say he clearly means, but you are not showing this from the Romans passages themselves, but bringing in passages from other letters of Paul's that are about our walk in the Holy Spirit, not about our initial justification which is what Romans is all about. You aren't quoting anything. Where is Paul saying this? I don't know what you are referring to. I"m sorry, you really aren't putting together an argument here that a person could follow well enough to answer it. Would you please quote Paul on this? Perhaps you already have but the connection is not clear. All these verses are admonitions about our walk in Christ, our walk in the Holy Spirit, to avoid certain snares that are easy to fall into. They have nothing to do with the message of Romans which is about our initial justification by faith in Christ based on His sacrifice for us.And I fail to see how any of this has to do with the idea of universal salvation. I agree with Legend that you are not addressing how his interpretation is wrong. He's right that how many disagree with him is irrelevant. Many also agree with him and I'm one -- he is simply saying what I also said in different words, that Paul is explaining the rules by which we are saved or condemned, and showing that by them we are all condemned and need a Savior if we are not to be condemned forever. YOu say Legend repeats himself but you have repeated this exchange many times already. I should probably erase a lot of it but it's hard to know exactly where to make the cut. What can I say? You haven't shown me this. Legend's version of it is fine by me. You keep saying this but have yet shown nothing FROM THE PASSAGE ITSELF that demonstrates what you are getting at. You've quoted many OTHER verses by Paul but seem to be studiously avoiding discussing the one passage that this is all about. And exactly what statements of Paul's in the first chapters of Romans do you believe are saying this? Quotes from Romans please. Well, you have yet to show anything from the passage in question that demonstrates that Paul intends any such meaning. And then as usual you go on to a completely DIFFERENT passage by Paul, again avoiding Romans {EDIT: Since you quote Romans 12 I should correct this to say you are avoiding the relevant early chapters of Romans}: Yes, and I've agreed that it is all from God many times already, our faith too, but again you are not addressing Romans which is supposedly the whole area of contention between you and Legend and me. Instead, you persist in addressing other passages, Paul's exhortations to believers about what kind of walk is expected of us. The last quote from Ephesians IS about God's gift of our salvation. Certainly it is a gift, nobody has disputed that, certainly not I and I don't recall Legend's saying anything to dispute it. Which I already said many posts back. Yes, salvation is completely from God, none of it is from us. Noone has disagreed with you about this. In fact I believe I may have brought up the fact first. However, again, why are you quoting other passages by Paul when this dispute is about what he says in Romans 1-7? Romans is particularly famous for being Paul's argument for salvation by faith alone. That and Galatians were the centerpiece of Luther's break from the Roman Church, the very books that freed him from salvation by works and began the Reformation.Do you consider this argument we are having to be rehashing the whole Reformation perhaps? I wouldn't have thought so, simply because in those days the Roman Church wouldn't have accepted your universalist views, but maybe it's really the same dispute with some new factors added in. Yes? Again, Mr. Ex. what "many Christians" don't believe does not answer the point. You have made this the crux of your argument all along here, but it is no argument.The only other argument you've offered is quotations from Paul from OTHER letters. You have steadfastly refused to address the Romans passage in question, while claiming Paul does not mean what Legend and I read him to mean there. If you can't point to specific statements in Romans to support your contention you simply have no case at all and are wandering all over the place saying nothing.I will see if the rest of your post has more to say.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-28-2005 04:30 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-28-2005 05:51 PM

Again, you haven't quoted anything from the passages we are discussing so that we could have any idea what your interpretation of them is. You've quoted many other things but not the passages in question.And again you keep insisting that many others disagree, which, again, is questionable, as I've shown, and irrelevant in any case. Clearly saying our interpretation is invalid is saying we are wrong but I don't want to argue that. Again you are stating that you disagree that "Paul is unambiguously saying in Romans that no one can be saved by deeds of the law -- or only by faith in Jesus" and again, you have NOT YET, NOT ONCE, addressed what Paul has actually said in Romans to show how you arrive at a different view of it. And AGAIN you go on to refer to all the others who disagree with us. Really, Mr. Ex, you are not making any sense. I grasp that this is your view, but YOU HAVE NOT YET SHOWN HOW YOU GET THIS VIEW OUT OF THE FIRST CHAPTERS OF ROMANS. He asks you to support your claim that his reasoning is faulty and your response is you think the answer is becoming apparent to him? Huh? I mean, excuse me, HUH? You are misrepresenting what he said. He said that it is like what a Judge would spell out about the standards the jury is to use to determine guilt or innocence, not a "trial like" scenario in a general way, just that one thing, the presentation of the LAW ITSELF, the rules by which a person is to be exonerated or condemned. Paul focuses on the condemnation of idolatry and the connection with homosexual sin and many other kinds of sin (Romans 1:18-32). I think you haven't made your case to say the least. You keep stating this, at great length, but haven't yet once shown how you arrive at this view from the passages in question. So, once again, exactly where do you find such an idea in the early chapters of Romans? You haven't even convinced me of which Christian bodies believe such a thing, as I discussed in my answer to the first half of this post, but again, being perplexed is one thing, showing us where you arrive at the idea that Paul says anything to support the idea that God saves anyone who does not know Christ. I'm clamoring for the same proof. SHOW US, PLEASE!!!! Exactly! And you haven't yet shown how Legend is wrong about this. All the above is just puff, Mr. Ex, merely insulting Legend but having shown nothing yet to prove him wrong. Blah blah blah. YOU HAVE NOT YET SHOWN ANY OF THE "MEANINGS" IN QUESTION TO SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM ROMANS 1-3 SAYS. IN ONE OF PAUL'S OTHER LETTERS. IT IS NOT IN ROMANS. AND IF YOU WANT TO SANCTIFY SPOUSES ONLY, LET'S CHANGE THE SUBJECT, BUT THAT IS NOT YOUR SUBJECT. YOU ARE DEVIOUSLY CHANGING THE SUBJECT, WHICH IS GENERAL PRINCIPLES, SPECIFICALLY FROM THE BOOK OF ROMANS, THAT YOU CLAIM JUSTIFY THE IDEA THAT PAUL HIMSELF IS NOT SAYING THAT WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH ALONE!!!! Do tell. That's for sure. This is rapidly becoming anything BUT amusing to me as your evasion of the issue is something incomprehensible and apparently endless. I do not know what you are talking about. You refuse to address the relevant passages in Romans. You are evading the issue. You are making irrelevant arguments, quoting irrelevant passages out of context, playing some kind of game that is beyond me to figure out. If there is anything to what you are saying I can't get it out of your method of presenting it. Oh that's why you keep insisting on his answering you. But what I told you was about as generic an answer as there is. I could be any denomination from what I told you. So what good would it do for Legend to specify a denomination of which he was once a part?The view of Romans I have and Legend also appears to have is not peculiar to my present denomination. I have learned it from many sources, many theologians and preachers from many denominations. I haven't given denomination a thought in all of my learning of these things and I don't understand why you do. It's not Roman Catholic but that's maybe about all it isn't. It can be found in Augustine and probably other of the Church Fathers. All the Protestant denominations that haven't gone liberal maintain this view of Romans, which we all inherit from Luther and Calvin and company. But again, "all-purpose" was really MY way of avoiding being tied to a particular denomination. I've been part of three different denominations, and visited many others, all of which preach basically what I've given here as the orthodox Protestant understanding of Romans. NOW you're getting it. Like Legend, I avoided telling you my denomination because I regard it as irrelevant to the discussion. I fail to see the relevance of the above. Far as I can see you've simply failed to address the point at issue that Legend has repeatedly asked for. You repeatedly declare that he's wrong nevertheless without the slightest attempt to prove him wrong.Oh well. I did my best to answer you.

P.S.Since you'd like to know my denomination and Legend's former denomination, may I know what your former Protestant denomination was?You seem unfamiliar with the teaching of the Reformation, and possibly your denomination would explain that. Or it might not.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-28-2005 05:58 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-28-2005 08:23 PM

Thanks for your answer.Yes, Luther did retain some Catholic beliefs.

I wasn't ignoring you by the way. I was away from the board for 24 hours, courtesy of Admin. My mistake, I should have been more exact, but you never did say a thing about how that passage could be otherwise interpreted. That was Legend's objection and it is mine too. You referred only to OTHER scriptures and to your claim that other Christians disagree with us. Good, that's what has been needed all along. I think you still need to show that it relates at all to the Romans passages in question just because that has been the topic for a while now. I believe I've already answered this completely. There is nothing more to say. We can only agree to disagree. Again, I've answered this thoroughly from my point of view. There is nothing more to say. All that was left to discuss was your contention that Paul ISN'T teaching salvation by faith in Christ in Romans 1-3 or 1-7. Again, WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS. You've argued your case, I've argued mine. Please let's not rehash it. We disagree. I've said how and why I disagree.Again, it has come down to this last dispute about what Paul said in the first chapters of Romans. Even if this is addressing Christians, which some consider debatable, this is about how God leads people to repentance and salvation by faith in Christ. Some say he is addressing the Jewish Christians in particular, who put themselves above the Greeks because of the grossness of the sins of the Greeks. But overall it is about how God waits patiently for sinners to repent and turn to Him, even these grossly sinning Greeks, a message which is the opposite of any idea that they can be saved without repenting and turning to God. The fact that there are remnants of recognition of the one true God among the pagans does NOT mean salvation can be expected on that basis, and in fact this passage says clearly that salvation is had by turning from those pagan sins to God in Christ. NO CHRISTIAN believes the Law could save anybody. Paul says that explicitly -- All the Law can do is condemn. I believe the entire Old Testament was given to reveal Christ. Why would you think I wouldn't see it that way? It's quite standard theology. I do believe the Israelites were saved by their FAITH, however, those among them who HAD faith, that is, which wasn't all of them.I'm going to end this answer here and try to condense my answer to the rest of it later, as it looks like you are developing a theology at great length, most of which I don't disagree with.Thank you for finally spelling out how you read those Romans passages.

I have to ask you for evidence of any idea that anyone is saved simply because of not having reached the Age of Accountability. The idea is completely against the whole idea of the Baptist denomination, which is that nobody is saved who does not profess faith in Christ and nobody can receive baptism who does not profess faith in Christ. There IS an Age of Accountability in the sense that young children are generally not considered to be able to profess a genuine faith in Christ with understanding. There is NO such idea in the sense YOU have used it, that anyone is saved without making a conscious profession of faith. Well, enlighten me. This kind of hit and run is out of bounds. I stated my understanding that traditionally, Purgatory in the Roman Church is for CHRISTIANS. So prove to me it's not. I have NO idea what you are talking about. Luther certainly had no such idea.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-30-2005 03:35 AM

I never understood this to be merely a Calvinist belief, but a specifically Baptist belief. It's what always set the Baptists off from the paedobaptist churches. You don't identify the source of the statement, the particular branch of the Baptists. Nevertheless it's a tangent, apparently I missed whatever you posted on the subject earlier, so let's just drop it.

Well that's what Paul SAYS, Mr. Ex. The Law could not save, it is a tutor to bring us to Christ. As Paul says in Galatians 3:10-11 Anyone who lives by the law is "under the curse." I see no ambiguity there. Our need of the Messiah is not our possession of the Messiah. That's what its being a "tutor to bring us to Christ" means, but pointing out our sins and leading us in the direction of Christ is not possessing Christ. If you read the sequence of our conversation you'll see that you just got finished saying you expected Legend and me to disagree with you about these things. It is very confusing when you do not stick to the actual conversation we are having. This is tendentious language, this idea of what I'm supposedly "willing" to do, and improper debate. This I'm "unwilling to acknowledge?" No, I consider it very bad reasoning. There is no such effort involved in faith and even if there were, the definition of salvation by works is not about the effort involved. Much effort is involved in the works done in faith also. We are told to "run the race." You are misdefining "works" in terms of "effort." The works that do not save are works done without faith, done in the flesh, an outward show which contradicts the condition of the heart. Effort has nothing to do with it. I don't see anything to this but a semantic/definitional mistake.

I have to admit that I simply cannot read through everything I have not yet answered. There are long posts that I've only answered in part and much I haven't read and just can't, and there must be at least four or five of them.This being the case, I have to ask you if you would please single out the important points you would like me to consider, and present them as briefly as possible?

I don't want more of the same, sorry. There's too much going on, and actually most of it is repetitive but just too hard to sort out -- it really shouldn't be all that hard for you to condense it to the main points. but I guess I'll have to bow out. Thanks for the debate.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-30-2005 10:26 PM