|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,904 Year: 4,161/9,624 Month: 1,032/974 Week: 359/286 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/1 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)  Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legend Member (Idle past 5035 days)  Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legend Member (Idle past 5035 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1366 days)  Posts: 712 Joined: |
I get it Faith...and don't really care.
*sigh* fine. let's go over some grammar rules.  As Roger Woodham notes, whether you say "you and I" or "you and me" in co-ordinate phrases depends on whether they function as subjects or objects in the sentence: For example:
"You and I" should go and speak to Trevor about this matter. or... Trevor has indicated that he wants to interview "you and me". Note that in colloquial informal British English, people often use "you and me" as subjects, even though it is known to be incorrect. This has led to an assumption that "you and me" can never be correct and people (even the Queen perhaps) then sometimes use "you and I" as objects instead of the correct form "you and me". This is the mistake that I made, assuming that "you and I" was always the correct form. But for your own convenience, keep a clear distinction between them as the same rule applies to other personal pronouns, i.e it's "she and I" when they are the subject of the clause and her and me when they are the object: For example:
Do you know Geoffrey? Well, he and I are going to Stamford Bridge to watch Chelsea on Saturday. They wouldn't listen to her or me when I said we couldn't go with them. Consequently, my restating the phrase "Keep watching the discussion between Faith and I." into "Faith and I are already discussing this subject Legend." is actually the accurate way to state it, in my opinion anyway. anyway...this is off topic Faith -- and you know that.
Faith writes: I've already addressed message 142 Now I'll go back and read your reply. No more grammar rules please. Actually, something like that I would simply "private message" the person if that's possible. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-23-2005 09:18 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member (Idle past 423 days)  Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
Faith writes: No I don't think they're saved, merely spared the lower hells. Wow...now that's merciful.  Eternal life in hell is still eternal life in hell regardless of the degree of suffering one experiences in hell. Wow...so God rewards those who have lived sincerely and honestly by God's laws by "mercifully" sending them into the highest and least painful level of hell? Are you really listening to what you're saying here?
Faith writes: But I really don't know. And if you really don't know what happens in these situations where the gospel message is absent, then how can you state with 100% confidence that other evidences of God (such as in nature or even other religions for that matter) might not be allowable as "saving knowledge"?
Faith writes: It's just a thought I've sometimes had. Scripture is not clear on the subject. Well, according to your "interpretation" of the Scriptures, the Scriptures are not clear on the subject. Some other Christians disagree with you though. But, for the sake of discussion, let's say that the Scriptures are not clear on the subject as you note. If so, then how can one conclude with 100% certainty from the Scriptures themselves (which are not clear on the subject as you admit) that other evidences of God (such as in nature or even other religions for that matter) might not be allowable as "saving knowledge" in conditions where the gospel message is not known?
Faith writes: When that person is one of the elect. There is no other implication. The doctrine of the elect puts a boundary on all this speculation of yours. In your "interpretation" of the Scriptures it does. Some other Christians disagree with you though.
Faith writes: I believe this is the gospel call, to all who hear. It is the first thing Jesus said, repent and believe the gospel. Nothing new here. It is the message that attends the revelation of the Savior. Well, I agree with that too -- that this indicates the gospel call -- and that those who "hear the gospel call" are held accountable to the message given. However, I still maintain that those who have not heard the gospel call cannot be fairly held accoutable for not knowing the gospel. Think about this Faith: How on earth can someone be held accoutnable to the gospel if they've never heard the gospel call?
Faith writes: But such overlooking doesn't imply salvation, merely temporal leniency. In your "interpretation" of the Scriptures it does. Some other Christians disagree with you though.
Faith writes: This is the basic idea I was getting at myself. Obedience to God's law brings blessings IN THIS LIFE. How it will all fall out in eternity for sincere Gentile followers of the Law (of whom I can think of none except maybe Confucius and Lao Tzu myself) is not clear from such passages... I thought the Christ himself said something about this in Matthew 6:10 when he said, "...your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." In other words, I thought that blessings from God in this "temporal life" carried over into the next "eternal life" with God.
Faith writes: ...but given the strict message of gospel salvation that Paul goes on to develop in Romans I see no way any of this implies salvation outside the gospel. Actually, given your strict "interpretation" of the message of the gospel's salvation, we see that you believe that Paul goes on to develop in Romans I a statement that in no way implies salvation outside the gospel. As I've said before, in your "interpretation" of the Scriptures it does. Some other Christians disagree with you though.
Faith writes: True, but Paul goes on to preach that NOBODY IS RIGHTEOUS BY THE LAW, NOBODY QUALIFIES. I agree with this. But I'm not saying that the Law saves them. I'm suggesting that Christ is at work in those who don't him -- that their "primitive laws" might be considered like a "precursory system" that God allows until the fullness of the Gentiles is complete.
Faith writes: Yes, if some DID live like this, YES THEY WOULD BE SAVED, because the Savior came not to save the righteous but sinners, and if in fact anybody is REALLY righteous, REALLY not a sinner that person WOULD BE SAVED. No doubt. Now show me this amazing creature. This person does not exist. Christ, who is true God and true man did this -- and I think he is capable of extending his blessings to those who do not know him -- even to sinners for that matter (who we all are).
NIV writes:
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:7 Faith writes: When I speak of those who make a sincere effort to live by it I'm talking about something very relative. I believe there are such people but even they by God's standards are nothing but sinners. And again, if they weren't they couldn't die. Physical death comes to all people Faith -- including Christians. Eternal life with God, however, is certainly a promised that is spefically linked with our Christian faith. However, the question still remains as to whether God extends this blessing to others outside the Christian faith. I maintain they do. You maintain they do not.
Faith writes: As Paul makes very very very clear in much of his writings, we are ALL sinners, ALL condemned under the Law. And you know what the evidence of this is? All of us are subject to death -- the truly righteous by God's standards would not be subject to death. Paul is simply here emphasizing the righteousness of the Law, the basis upon which we are judged, FROM WHICH JUDGMENT WE ARE SAVED BY CHRIST IF WE BELIEVE ON HIM. Yes, and I maintain that other cultures have glimpsed Christ however dimly his image might appear.
Faith writes: But all CAN properly be held accountable. I've certainly affirmed that idea before. Yes, but you haven't explained how on earth this position could be considered "fair" or "just" except to say that God is fair and just in doing this. How on earth could this be considered fair and just?
Faith writes: All of us are born in sin and sin every day of our lives. I agree.
Faith writes: NOBODY is free of accountability to God's Law. I disagree to some extent. If you're talking about the law written in the hearts of all men:
Catholic Commandments: duty to man writes:
Honor thy father and thy motherThou shalt not murder Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not steal Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods Or, if you wish to show a protestant grouping of these commandment which pertain to people's duty to other people:
Protestant Commandment: duty to man writes:
Honor your father and your motherYou shall not murder You shall not commit adultery You shall not steal You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor You shall not covet your neighbor's house, neighbour's wife, his manservant, his field, etc. Either way you divide it, there is an almost universal agreement in all cultures that these things are wrong (or "sinful" as the Scriptures indicate}. In this regard, I do think that all people are held accountable to these duties to their fellow human beings. It's the duty to God that many, in my opinion, cannot be held strictly accountable for -- unless this knowledge is revealed. And the question still remains: What would constitute a valid revelation in absense of God's word found in the Scriptures?
Faith writes: Not at all. It merely shows that you have a fleshly /carnal /earthly / merely human / fallen understanding of what mercy and love mean. Most of us do. Or maybe you have a devilish understanding of what mercy and love mean. Most of us do.
Faith writes: But God has a perspective that is way above ours. We don't understand the heinousness of sin, the ugliness and blackness of it to the mind of God. Actually, I think we do understand the heinousness of sin better than God -- although God knows the end result of sin better than us. God can't even think about sin in my opinion (can't even look upon the face of sin) -- and that's why his thinking is different from our thinking. He can only understand what is good.
Faith writes: His saving ANY of us at all is mercy and love WAY beyond the call of duty given how abhorrent sin is to Him. I tend to think that sin breaks our connection to God by occulting his knowledge of our existence -- thus leaving us not knowing of his existence.
Faith writes: And the only way he COULD save us -- because as a strictly practical matter we are not fit for his presence clothed in our sins -- is by WASHING US CLEAN OF OUR SINS and robing us in His own righteousness -- which is done by our faith in the sacrifice of Christ in our place. Yes, and he is capable of washing clean those that do not believe in him too. Or, are you saying that it is impossible for God to save someone who doesn't believe in Christ?
Faith writes: Now if God has a way of robing some who have never heard of Christ in the merits of Christ that is His own secret. Then how did Christ preach to the Spirits in prison long ago?
Faith writes: He doesn't reveal it anywhere in scripture and a straight reading of scripture is that it doesn't happen. Actually, he does reveal it in Scripture, altough your "interpretation" of these passages would reduce the potency of these statements to mean something else.
NIV writes: For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. I Peter 3: 18-20a A "straight reading" of this passage means that Christ by the Spirit went back in time and preached to those who did not know him. Even though only 8 people "physically survived" -- it still remains quite possible that many lost souls who perished back then still nonetheless found salvation from Christ's preaching on this "spiritual level". If no one was saved by his preaching in the Spirit, then I see little reason for Christ to go back and do this. Certainly he would know in advance that this would be a waste of time.
Faith writes: I learned some time ago not to consult myself about what is fair and not fair once I understood the greatness and holiness and righteousness and perfection and mercy of God. It's not for me to judge Him. Whatever He does is from perfect justice and perfect love whether I am capable of appreciating it or not. WHATEVER He does, it is good. We may not see it until the resurrection but then we will see it perfectly. "His ways are not our ways." Yes, but you (just like me) presume to know that the final destination of those souls which have died without hearing the gospel message will be a fair judgment. I maintain that God's fairness will most likely allow him to be merciful to them. I'm basically saying that God is not powerless to act mercifully if he so choses. You maintain that God's fairness will most likely not allow him to be merciful to them. You're basically saying that God is powerless to act mercifully if he so choses.
Faith writes:
Not if you have any true scripture-based understanding of his character it doesn't. Only those who have the most superficial knowledge and trust in their own emotions dare to think of God in such terms. Wow...so only you have the "true scripture-based" understanding of his character -- and the rest of us are deluded I guess?
Faith writes: Then they don't belong in it. Truth is truth. God can draw anyone to the truth. We don't need to water down the truth. That way you only draw people to a false Christianity, a false God, and unfortunately there's an awful lot of that deception going on these days. There's an awful lot of watered down evangelism that tries to make the sovereign God fit our own fallen minds. Nothing could be more foolish. God as He really is can be terrifying, truly, but He is only a terror to the finally rigidly unrepentant. Otherwise He is revealed in scripture to be a merciful loving father to those who put their trust in Him. What could be simpler? Put your trust in Him and He is your protector and guide. Anyone who really wants to know Him will find that to be so, but those who just balk and complain based on their fallen minds will never ever get it. I've never disagreed that we Christians possess this knowledge Faith. I've also never disagreed that the Christian Scriptures are the most perfect revelation of God's will as far as I'm concerned. However, for the sake of this discussion, my concern has always been for those who have not heard the gospel message, or even had knowledge of God the Father for that matter -- and any potential saving evidence that he might allow in these specific cases.
Faith writes: Well, I hate to be difficult here, but what YOU think isn't relevant. What GOD thinks is what counts. That's the point of studying a LOT about God in His scriptures, so we can know better what HE thinks. Yes, but what you are proclaiming is what you THINK that God thinks based on your "interpretation" of the Scriptures. Let me repeat this. What you are proclaiming is what you THINK that God thinks based on your "interpretation" of the Scriptures.
Faith writes: Why is this such a big question may I ask? Because it directly pertains to the question of potential saving evidence in nature in absence of the Gospel message. I suppose at the very least I could just go out and talk to the animals to find out about God:
NIV writes:
But ask the animals, and they will teach you,or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of all these does not knowthat the hand of the LORD has done this? In his hand is the life of every creatureand the breath of all mankind. Job 12:7-10 Faith writes: What does it matter? It matters a lot if you are wrong in your assertions.
Faith writes: Those who don't know Christ don't ask this question because they don't know there is a question to ask. Send out missionaries. That's how we try to reach them. There are armies of missionaries trying to reach these people. Otherwise leave them to God. The same God who will send them to hell (according to your understanding of the Scriptures) because they didn't believe in Christ (even though no missionaries have been around to tell them about Christ)?
Faith writes: The ones who ask this question are those who know something of the Christian gospel and are doing nothing but complaining about it, refusing to repent though they know that's what they are called to do, refusing to honor and trust God, refusing to honor and obey his Law, refusing refusing refusing, like a bunch of rebellious defiant children just sticking their tongues out at God. Getting a little bit testy there Faith.  Actually, this response kind of sounds like St. Augustine's response to the one who asked him what God was doing before the creation event. Or was that Martin Luther? Maybe it was Luther quoting St. Augustine? The point is this: Not everybody who asks these questions is refusing to repent though they know that's what they are called to do, nor refusing to honor and trust God, nor refusing to honor and obey his Law, no refusing refusing refusing... They are not all a bunch of rebellious defiant children just sticking their tongues out at God either.
Faith writes: There may certainly be those in the world who have never heard the gospel... Well, I can say with 100% certainty that there are people in the world who have not read the entirety of the Christian Scriptures printed on pages in a book -- therefore, by your definition, not really having access to salvation at all.
Faith writes: ...and who knows how God will judge them in the end except that it will be righteous and just... But, again, if you don't know how God will judge them in the end (except that it will be righteous and just), then how can you say with 100% certainty that other evidences of God (such as in nature or even other religions for that matter) might not be allowable as "saving knowledge" in absense of the Gospel message?
Faith writes: ...but those who do all this complaining are without excuse in a far more offensive way. They KNOW the gospel and here they are complaining about some people who may conceivably not know it. Well, actually, if I recall correctly, I've never stated that they can't know the gospel through other religions or even nature. You're the one saying that.
Faith writes: But they are the ones who are in danger. The ones who have never heard will probably fare a lot better in the end than these compulsive fault-finders. Yep...they'll just get a less hot region of hell to mow their lawn in. Don't forget to pack the Coppertone.
Faith writes: You know, just because I state one thing that is true does not mean that I'm not aware of many other things that are also true. YOu keep trying to totalize everything. Abraham had a special relationship with God. And we don't? John the Baptist is described as the greatest prophet of the Old Testament period -- yet Christ also goes on to say that he will be like the least in heaven compared to our Christian relationship with God.
Faith writes: He respected God. He trusted and loved God, even to the point of being willing to sacrifice his own son upon His command. Somebody who doesn't respect God's sovereignty is not going to get to plead with him for some few righteous people when they themselves are so far from righteousness themselves. I respect God. I trust and love God -- although I admit that I would be very unwilling to sacrifice my own children upon God's command. Admittedly this is a dark question, but would you be able to sacrifice your own children upon God's command? I know for a fact that I would've failed this test -- and I readilly admit it too.
Faith writes: Just try it. Try what? Pleading with God? I do all the time. I know he listens too, even if what he decides is not what I desire.
Faith writes: ...but those who do all this complaining are without excuse in a far more offensive way. They KNOW the gospel and here they are complaining about some people who may conceivably not know it. But they are the ones who are in danger. The ones who have never heard will probably fare a lot better in the end than these compulsive fault-finders... I find no fault in God. I find fault in your "interpretation" of how God will most likely act in regards to those who do not know him or his son for reasons beyond their control. I'm willing to admit that God would most likely honor peripheral evidence of him and his son in absence of the a clear proclamation of the gospel message. You are not willing to admit this to the extent that I am willing to admit it -- perhaps we do not agree at all with this if you continue to stress that these others will most likely be rewarded with a less severe eternal life in hell (which is really no reward at all). Edit: spelling. Added content for clarification, Job quote, reformatted text to flow more clearly. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-23-2005 12:16 PM This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-23-2005 09:38 PM This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-23-2005 10:40 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6383 days)  Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legend Member (Idle past 5035 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legend Member (Idle past 5035 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legend Member (Idle past 5035 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
"cha-ching!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
