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

I haven't had time to read through the thread, but the discussion is interesting and I'll respond in more detail later.

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

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

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

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 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'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...

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

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 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.

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.

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?