jaybird18c

There's nothing new under the sun.

How about the expanding universe, matter, energy, space/time, governing laws of physics, electromagnetism, etc. Just prior to them coming into existence (ex nihilo)? Evidence seems to indicate that there was a starting point. We just disagree on what started it. A prime mover or just random chance. All that stuff didn't exist prior..but now it does. But I guess, by definition, that isn't tangible evidence of non-existence (that doesn't even make sense but it was fun to say. ) However, all this stuff points to it all not existing at some point...right? Is that evidence...of a sort? I guess the logical argument itself might serve as a form of evidence that something didn't exist in the past. Yeah...I'm sticking with that. Not sure about all that but all this stuff does seem to indicate that it came from somewhere. Its complexity and order seem to indicate information and design. So it existing might be proof of a designer since information has to come from somewhere other than matter itsitself.

"You Don't Honestly Believe that! http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/tabid/602/articleid/6632/cbmoduleid/881/default.aspx Just read this. Good article.

The context here is that Jesus was teaching the people not to pray in meaningless repetition, like the Pharisees. He gave them the model for prayer. NO. He referred to it (a lot). "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:46)

Wow! What to say to all that... Nevermind...

I don't say this in meanness. I promise. But what you just said is very heretical and not up for debate. It is the stuff that cults are made of. It is the lie that was first told to Adam & Eve. ("Did God really say; You can be like God")

Several items of disagreement here: (And don't take this wrong; I don't mean any of it as an attack) Jesus appointed as Judge “We are witnesses of all these things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, no to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arouse from the dead. And He ordered us to preach to the people , and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 10:38-43) “We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater; therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure. This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” (2 Thessalonians 1:3-8) With regard to our being able to save ourselves: (God speaking to Jonah) “But I will sacrifice to You with the voice of thanksgiving. That which I have vowed I will pay. Salvation is from the Lord.” (Jonah 2:9) “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8) If you were just like Him, you wouldn't need saving and Jesus didn't have to die in your place (a fatal misunderstanding). “These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes.” (Psalm 50:21)

Both. Hypostatic Union - Jesus Christ was "fully" God and, at the same time, "fully" human. Impossible to explain properly or understand completely. It is in fact a mystery. But necessary. If He was one but not the other, then that is very bad news for us because we cannot be forgiven our sins. Both would be required for His sacrifice to be sufficient. Added: Looking back at your quote, I totally disagree with one part. The part where you described Jesus as a "god like ourselves." Just gotta make that clear. We "are not" little gods.

This is from a book I had to read for Systematic Theology 1. The book is “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination”, Loraine Boettner, 1932. I can’t explain it any better than they did. It reflects my belief on the subject. “Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved. The Scriptures seem to teach plainly enough that the children of believers are saved; but they are silent or practically so in regard to those of the heathens. The Westminster Confession does not pass judgment on the children of heathens who die before coming to years of accountability. Where the Scriptures are silent, the Confession, too, preserves silence. Our outstanding theologians, however, mindful of the fact that God’s “tender mercies are over all His works,” and depending on His mercy widened as broadly as possible, have entertained a charitable hope that since these infants have never committed any actual sin themselves, their inherited sin would be pardoned and they would be saved on wholly evangelical principals.” “Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills.” (B.B. Warfield) Again, I could be completely wrong on this and this is a “non-essential” position that we can agree to disagree on. I submit to what the scripture says. I remain flexible on where scripture is silent or where a particular subject is left in ambiguity. It would be my hope that all infants would be saved by God’s grace. The payment of Jesus Christ was certainly sufficient for the salvation of all. However, for reasons known only to Him, it was only efficient for His elect.

Let me emphasize to you that I do not consider this an "essential" that we'd have to agree on (as Christians) in terms of salvation (just with regard to baptism; I haven't gotten to the "infant saved or not" question yet). I guess my answer to your question above is "it depends." The God of the OT is the same God in the NT. I agree that we are under the New Covenant and should live our lives as such as is described in the NT. However, I don't think one can fully "understand" what God has revealed to us about himself unless you start in the beginning. The story is an unfolding "progressive revelation" of God's plan of salvation for His people. It starts in Genesis with God having to call Adam back to himself (because he wouldn't have come on his own) and providing the first sacrificial "sin-covering" (animal sacrifice) Himself (a type/shadow of the sufficient one to come; Jesus Christ). All of scripture helps our understanding. Just my opinion brother. Again, not an essential.

Hopefully without getting into the baptism issue too deeply, I would quickly say that the bible is clear that no one is justified by the act of baptism or any other work (by us). However, Christians are instructed to do so. Catholics believe in Sacradotalism indicating that one is saved through the sacraments (e.g. must be baptized and participate in the mass in order to be saved). Therefore, they also baptize their infants/children. I very strongly disagree with this (Sacradotalism, not the paedobaptism part) and find it absolutely contrary to the teachings of Paul (Ephesians 2:8-9). Others (e.g. Presbyterians) also believe in paedobaptism, however, it means something completely different from the Catholics. Presbyterians (Reformed/Covenantal Theology) see it, as do Baptists/Methodists, etc. as a "Sign of the New Covenant." However, Presbyterians come at it from a different perspective. They (of which I am one) believe that baptism is in fact a sign of the New Covenant but that it is a sign of God's covenant with His people (which cannot be broken because God always keeps His promises). We, on the other hand, always do not and fall short. Baptism is a replacement of the "blood" covenant of circumcision in the OT with the "bloodless" New Covenant accomplished by Jesus Christ in the NT. It is now, identification with the Savior. It in NO WAY indicates that one is justified before God. That ONLY comes by faith (evidenced by repentance) in Jesus Christ (those whom He has called to Himself). However, it does mean that infant who has been baptized into the covenant family enjoys the benefits of such. At some point, he/she will be required to repent and place their faith in Jesus in order to be saved. Also, believers, if not baptized, should also be. Baptists, on the other hand, just come at it from the human perspective (which is not necessarily wrong). They say that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change (which is true) and that (in the NT), only believers were described being baptized (which is also true; by immersion, most likely). I've got no problem with that. Both of us agree that no one is saved by baptism. We could be wrong and still have fellowship with one another. Anyway, that’s my understanding of baptism in a nutshell (my opinion; everybody’s got one). That aside, I’ll think about the question of children dying at a young age and whether they are saved or not and post in a bit. Gotta pace myself.

Presbyterian here (PCA)...no shortage of joy...because my debt has been paid...and I still like beer and Bacon.

Dude, that's quite a stretch. There were too many witnesses. Too many corroborating stories. There's no evidence that they were lying or insane. Especially, not "all" of them. That is ridiculous.

Romans 2:14-15

That is true...I do. But that is a shift from the question on your part. But...I respect that answer more than the previous ones. At least you admit (somewhat?) that you just don't believe it...but that is aside from the logic in my statement.

Again....... ........ ..... wow!.......... THAT is not what I said. Refer to previous posts for clarification.

Not the same thing at all. You're refusing to see this from the point of view of the Apostles. Would they have done what they did if they KNEW the resurrection did not occur? I'd respect your intellectual honesty more if you just said you don't believe any of that occurred anyway but that it would be illogical for someone to voluntarily die for what he knew for a fact was a lie.

If you "knew" something was not true, would you be willing to be tortured and killed to further that falsehood? That's the key. Of course you might if you believed it. That happens all the time. But if you knew it was false? Goes to the credibility of the Apostle's stories. Then, consider the difference in what they were willing to endure for that cause (some requesting to be crucified upside down because they were unworthy to be put to death in the same way as the Savior.) And the fact that they actually saw what they were dying for. It is illogical to think that they would if they knew it was all a sham.

That's right. I'm trying to show that it would be very unlikely that they would be willing to die if they knew it to be false. They completely believe in their cause. So did the Apostles. The difference is that the Apostles were eye-witnesses. And...they died tortuous deaths because they would not deny what they saw. Also, flying into a building is instantaneous and painless. Crucifixion is not.

How is that different? You left off the rest of my quote: "You do realize that most of those guys died horribly rather than deny what they had seen and experienced? Now, Muslims fly into buildings for what they deeply believe but that is different. It would be very difficult indeed to find someone willing to suffer and die the kind of deaths the Apostles did for what they knew to be false (just to further another false religion)."

I think it's easier to paint those you disagree with or misunderstand as crazy than to try and understand their point of view.

I respect your faith, but I respectfully disagree. These issues are a distraction from the real message the Bible is offering. Salvation to a lost world. I agree that we can agree to disagree on this but it does undermine the doctrine of salvation which begins in Genesis. You can choose not to believe what it says, but it is clear. A Gap theory or any other is just an attempt to compromise and harmonize what is told with modern evolutionary ideas.

that's not what the other guys have been telling us here. "Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds." Romans 2:4-5

Mind the gap. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/mind-the-gap

You do realize that most of those guys died horribly rather than deny what they had seen and experienced? Now, Muslims fly into buildings for what they deeply believe but that is different. It would be very difficult indeed to find someone willing to suffer and die the kind of deaths the Apostles did for what they knew to be false (just to further another false religion). Also kind of a different scenario than the one you mentioned.