jaybird18c

Logically, what’s the difference? In questioning theological answers, you are in fact asking theological questions. But you don’t, correct? You don’t want to believe. And you ridicule what you don’t really even want to understand. Deep down, you, on the surface, hate the idea of the church, a supreme authority, rules in that regard, control over your life, etc. But even deeper down, even though you say you don’t believe in God, you hate even the thought of him with every fiber of your being. Hell bent on autonomy, if you will. I know. I used to be exactly that way. Codification of beliefs have always come about as a result of aberrant or heretical teachings creeping into the church. That’s the case whether you’re Catholic or Protestant. It’s the reason for all the assemblies and confessions throughout the years. The Westminster Confession is but one of many very fine documents which accurately detail theological orthodoxy. Many learned theologians came together for its composition. Any confession is only as good as it is biblically accurate and helpful. It is authoritative for the church in that way only. It in no way supersedes the authority of scripture. It is a helpful tool, if you will. QuoteI put it to Ron differently but I believe the same of you: if you really believe as you claim why do you protest as you do? “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.” (1 Peter 3:13-17)

Ok. Whatever. You ask theological questions but you don't want theological answers. You don't really want to understand. You only ask to criticize and ridicule. The Westminster Confession of Faith, by the way, is a little more authoritative (in as much as it accurately explains Christian doctrine) than the guy in the next pew up.

QuoteOK then - how many real lies do you think you've told in your life which actualy resulted in hurting another person? Just answer in figure/s .... ? A bunch.

That doesn't answer the question.

Can I answer Jakee and you at the same time? Chapter 3 of the Westminster Confession speaks of God’s eternal decree and states: “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” Scriptural reference includes: Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15 ,18, Jam. 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5, Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27,28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33. Your question has to do with the concept of primary and secondary causation. God does in fact ordain everything that comes to pass “in a certain sense.” A primary sense. He did in fact create people whom he foreknew would sin against him. Although he knows what they will do, he never causes them, in a secondary sense, to sin. This does not make God the author of sin. God knows before I sin that I will. God often times chooses to allow me to do it rather than not (God’s permissive will). He could stop me and punish me on the spot but chooses not to. We have free will to choose. In choosing to sin (secondary cause), I retain full responsibility. God is glorified when his full attributes are put on display. This is also for our good. In order to do that, he has to allow sin. Without it, it would not be possible for him to put on display all the other aspects of how he deals with sinners (e.g. justice, wrath, judgment, mercy, grace, compassion, forgiveness). Like I said before, God uses or, in theological terms, overrules even the evil deeds of men for his purposes, for good, and for his glory.

[Reply]Ron thinks you're ignoring biblical teaching when you say that. What do you think? Nope. We're saying the same thing.

God uses or, as in theological terms, overrules even the evil deeds of men for his purposes. An example being when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. Because of Joseph's faith and obedience, he was blessed and eventually rose to a position of importance in Egypt second only to the Pharaoh. Joseph later was confronted by the brothers who betrayed him. Instead of condemnation, he showed mercy and forgiveness (also an OT foreshadow) resulting in their redemption.

Well put up or shut up. To which verse are you referring? Plenty of very learned biblical scholars back up what I told you with regard to the judgment of Jerusalem as the meaning of what would occur during their generation (e.g. AD 70). It does not say that Jesus will return in the lifetime of any 1st Century Jew. And you obviously don’t understand the differences and meaning behind the laws described in the bible. That being civil (that pertaining only to the Nation of Israel), ceremonial (those whose purpose was to foreshadow the perfect sacrifice which was to come; one which wouldn’t merely “cover” their sin but take it away; fulfilled in the work of Christ on the cross), and moral (which still are applicable for us today). The bible is a progressive revelation of God's plan of salvation for his people. It describes the historical trials and tribulations, successes and failures, of a people who repeatedly turned away from and back towards God as he directed them out of a pagan, polytheistic, culture. And you definitely do not comprehend the holiness of God who cannot be in the presence of even the smallest sin. However, you are correct in that there are some more grievous than others. There are also more severe levels of punishment in hell. However, at that point, it doesn’t really matter. It’s still hell. That’s why people often refer to all sin being the same. Please review what was discussed concerning the unconverted vs. the converted nature of man. QuoteWould you think that someone who proclaims that they have been "saved" yet absolutely, completely and totally refuse to follow Jesus' teachings while still here on earth to be a "true Christian"? No.

The God who is perfectly holy and righteous thinks lying is a pretty big deal. (Proverbs 12:22) But let's say just for the sake of argument that you are correct. Forget whichever little white lies you want to discount. How many real lies do you think you've told in your life which actually resulted in hurting another person? Corrupted by sin. Not by God. Whether a person is a follower of Christ or not, they still freely choose. The unconverted nature always has the propensity to choose that which is in opposition to God. The converted nature, even though they will still sin because of their fallen nature; albeit not an excuse to habitually sin, has a new propensity to think and do that which is in accordance with God’s will. QuoteJust so we're clear then - god could choose to regenerate my nature, and the very nature of creation, and enable me to live a life free of sin? That sounds like a pretty textbook definition of 'so it's his responsibility. No one is free of sin until they die. If they’ve repented and placed their faith in Jesus Christ, they will be what the bible terms as “glorified.” Cleansed of all sin. But not until then. The difference, however, during this lifetime was previously described.

Here’s the problem with cherry picking verses and inserting your own meaning into them. If you read what’s before and after, it explains things which will occur with the judgment of Jerusalem which did occur. But it does not say that Jesus will return in the lifetime of the apostles. Actually, in other verses, it explains that it will be a very long time before he returns. That’s good for those of us who need time to come to our senses. You just said “While I am a sinner (biblical term).” Sin is defined in scripture as “transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4),” referring to God’s moral Law (The 10 Commandments). You weren’t created to be a sinner. You’re a sinner because you choose to sin. The “Devil made me do it” excuse doesn’t even work in our judicial system. It won’t in God’s court either. (1 Peter 4:5) “but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.”

So how come some of them do? False conversion.

An analogy I heard: If I lie to a guy on the street, not much will happen to me. If I lie to my wife, I’ll be sleeping on the couch for a while. If I lie to my employer, I’ll most likely get fired. If I lie to a Judge, I’ll probably go to jail for a very long time. Same crime. Different punishment. Why? Because of how much we esteem the one against whom the offense was directed. A perfectly holy and righteous God. Man was originally created in the image of God with the free will to choose and with a nature which was in perfect harmony with God’s will. Man chose to sin. This had a radically corrupting effect not only on man’s nature but on all of creation. Because of this, you were born with a nature in conflict with and hostile towards God. You act exactly in accordance with your greatest desires which, apart from Christ, is contrary to his will. But you are still free to choose. It’s just that you choose to sin and are, therefore responsible. Unless God changes or “regenerates” your very nature, you will continue on your chosen path.

We used the verbiage “Act of God” as a legal term for unpredictable/unexplainable circumstances and your inference is that God’s statues are “capricious and random?” To what exactly do you refer? No argument there. But you’re already guilty of being a liar, thief, adulterer, etc. That’s like a criminal saying I murdered so and so but for 10 years I helped granny across the street to make it alright. God created you but he’s never…I repeat…never caused someone to sin. You are in fact responsible for your actions. A guilty criminal stands in court before the Judge who’s about to place sentence and he asks the Judge what’s wrong with him? Maybe that satisfies the criminal in some way but justice will take its course regardless.

I'm agnostic with regard to purple winged unicorns. Are you agnostic with regard to God?

“Capricious and random” declared by you. What’s amazing is the patience God has demonstrated with those today who continually sin against him. As an atheist, you’ve obviously not made God the top priority in your life. If that be the case, you’ve idolized and assigned other things in your life a higher value. I assume that, in spite of your disbelief, you’ve used the Lord’s name in vain. Keeping his day holy would be out of the question. I’m sure you’ve not always honored your parents. If you’ve ever hated another without just cause, you’ve committed murder in your heart. If you’ve ever looked with lust outside the covenantal bounds of marriage, you’ve committed adultery in your heart, if not also in deed. If you’ve ever stolen something, regardless of value or when, you’re a thief. If you’ve ever told a lie, you’re a liar. If you’ve ever dwelt on the desire to have something which doesn’t belong to you, you’re guilty of coveting. Before questioning the Lawgiver, you ought to examine yourself and figure out how you’re going to do when you stand before the Judge when you die.

Am I supposed to be impressed with you? Do you have anything intelligent to say on the topic or are you just going to keep running off at the mouth?

I take it that means you don't know how to answer any more questions? No. Just yours which have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. But you can take it however you want. Just don't have the time for the usual back and forth political garbage.

I'll make it easy. "Can an atheist get into heaven?" Your anti-Trump, anti-gun rights, gay/lesbian crap has got nothing to do with that.

Again, I have to assume you're serious. Where do you get your information?

Do you have any serious questions? How are these not serious questions? You state you are willing to accept an idiot and a tool as your President as long as he is pushing the agenda you want. I think it is demonstrable that President Idiot Tool's agenda, which evidently is also your agenda, has a number of serious and negative consequences both for certain groups of Americans and the reputation of our country on the world stage. If you are willing to make such a statement in a public forum you should also be willing to explain it on a public forum. Apparently, you are not so willing. "jaybird18c wrote: Just for the record, I don't defend Trump's idiocy. He's a tool. As long as he's pushing the agenda I want, I'm for him. But that's as far as I go. I have little respect for him as a person." I asked: "Do you believe the agenda you want is good for America? Clearly, Trumps agenda harms many of your fellow citizens, in particular those in the LGBT community. I would include the increasing numbers of americans unable to afford health care. There are more, of course. Is that simply acceptable collateral damage or are those folks simply expendable types according to the natural order? To the point, what is it in your agenda that makes harm to other americans acceptable? Given that you think Trump is an idiot and a tool for whom you have little respect, is it the case that our standing on the world stage is not part of your agenda?" Stay focused. You asked the stupid question of whether or not we'll need guns in heaven. Then you revert back to politics. I asked if you ever had any serious questions. I thought staying on topic was implied. My bad.

Do you have any serious questions?

Again, go find your safe place and depend on others to save you and your family. I handle things differently.

Of course you don't but I'm glad you're back on topic! Indeed, and you are welcome. Now will you answer my questions? I could. But I'd really like to stay on topic. I entered the thread to discuss theological issues, not conservative vs. liberal politics. Gotta add, though. I am permitted to conceal carry and do so often. I've not been required to take action to protect myself with a firearm in this country but I have elsewhere. My right to do so is guaranteed in the Constitution . However, I would do so even if it weren't.

Of course you don't but I'm glad you're back on topic!

By all definitions, yes. Do you need a safe place, counseling, etc.? Don't go off the edge just yet. I realize you Oregon snowflakes have to pump your own gas and stuff like that now. But smoke some more weed. The great philosopher Bob Marley said "every tin gonna be alright."