Question for Christians

[auggybendoggy]

I don't buy the Calvinist (extreme) views myself. I also dont buy the middle ground that says he knew what we would choose and appointed us unto it. Then it really does depend on me loving him not him loving me. I thought he chose me by his own mercy. As it states in romans he will have mercy on whom he has mercy and compassion on whom he has compassion...it does not therfore depend on mans efforts or desires but on God's mercy. So I don't believe God based his descision of whether I would love him by his knowing I would love him....Thats illogical and circular.

These issues have planted doubt in me because I see the scriptures supporting both Ideas at times and destroying both Ideas at other times.

 

For instanse I do believe Paul makes the point that God can do as he pleases (using Pharoa as the example) yet if God has a elect group to be saved then how can it be his will that all should come to repentance?

 

There are other tensions but this one in particular has made me doubt Theologians and pastors. I see people struggle (shall i say dance) in order to support one side or the other. I like what Congregation said becuase I like to keep the focus with my friends off of these issues and keep them on more important matters like love and mercy.

 

Late,

 

Auggy

[dwEEziL]

Is it still freewill if the choices you make are predestined and known by God?  God chose your path when you were born..  Right?

*Not meant to be inflammitory, serious question.

I believe along the lines of what Rev said. My predestination was not based on an arbitrary selection but based on God's foreknowledge of my choosing Him. You might think this is circular reasoning and in our scope of "reality" it just might be. But God is outside of time and is superset to this reality (meaning the reality is in Him, He is not bound by it) so the concepts of past, present, future hold no real meaning for Him as we understand them. He is the Alpha and Omega, beginning and the end, and he sees the beginning from the end. (ok, I am starting to ramble...sorry).

[Shadow Slayer]

hey im just going to throw this out there cause it blows my mind.. ok you know how God said that if we repent of our sins He is faithful and jsut to forgive us our sins and to clense us from all unrighteousness? well have you ever thought about that in light of the fact that he is omnipotent? i mean he looks back at my life and sees all the times i have fallen for this one temptation and still when i come and ask forgivness he forgives me and then remebers it no more. but when i come to ask for forgivness for a sin. he dosnt just see that ive done it over and over in the past... he also sees that i will do it over and over again in the future. but still even tho he knows i will do it again next weak he still pats me on the head and says "hey its all right.. i forgive you." thats blows my mind that he could fogive me for a sin thaat he knows i will fall too so very soon after he forgave me. just how mercifull is the God we serve?

 

 

 

 

on another note. yes i do doubt my salvation at times and and sometimes even doubt that theres a God. because i think well how could i be doing this sin that im doing and still have the mercy of God waiting just waiting for me to repent so He can bless me again?? but i just have to come back to the scripture where He said "but as many as will receive Him to them gave he power to become the sons of God even to them that beleive on his name." no what?? im NOt good enough for that. im NOT deserving of that in the least. but to doubt that im saved is not doubting that im good enough to be saved it is in effect doubting that Christs blood is not good enough to keep me saved. im not worthy but my debt has been paid bye the only One who is worthy. and whenever i run into a person that thinks they can lose there salvation. i simply ask them... so you think you can do somethign bad enough to nullify the sacrifice of Christ??? the blood of Christ??? taht annoys me that people are so proud that they think they can actually do something to make Calvary of non-effect. its the same with people who add works to there salvation, people that say well yes you do have to call on God to be saved BUT you also have to do this to be saved. such as baptism. (not saying baptism isnt right. just that you dont HAVE to be baptized to be saved.) bye saying that people are indulging themselves in the worst type of pride possible in saying that there is something they can do that Christ couldnt on calvary. ok ok i know im getting way off subject here but ill stop now.

 

S.S.

[Shadow Slayer]

you know i just thought of something. you know everyone is always saying that we cant be perfect? well in effect we can.... hear me out here. ok God says in the Bible that "if we confess our sins He is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins..." in another place it also says that "He will remeber them no more" in another it says that "He will put them as far as the east is from the west." now how could God forget something?? He cant forget. but He can choose not to remeber... therefore if He chooses not to remeber our sins... then our confession to Him is a VER VERY big thing because if he remembers our sin no more that means taht in His site (the only sight that matters.) we are perfect. because when we confess our sin. He remembers them no more and suddenly we have a clean slate... we are perfect until we sin again and then we have to come back and confess and forsake again. but wow that thought just blew me away that in the sight of an all mighty all knowing allpowerful God i can be blameless. WOWZERZ

 

 

 

S.S.

[gOOters]

Thanks to him...that is true. Must be a nice God.

[ConGregation]

I see you were listening in Sunday School last week, S.S.

 

It boggles my mind too. That lesson on Confession is really deeper than you can delve into with just one session. I'm still contemplating on some of that stuff. Basically the part about confessing is not only submitting to God's judgement of the sin (for me that is the easy part cause I know I am a worm) but submitting to his forgiveness of the sin (much harder for me). Like I said in the lesson, I would much rather do a bunch of good works in order to feel better about myself RATHER than come to God with my guilt and receive something that I don't deserve and can't earn. Facing God with nothing good in your hands is a very humbling experience. But that is what he desires.

[auggybendoggy]

hey im just going to throw  this out there cause it blows my mind.. ok you know how God said that if we repent of our sins He is faithful and jsut to forgive us our sins and to clense us from all unrighteousness? well have you ever thought about that in light of the fact that he is omnipotent? i mean he looks back at my life and sees all the times i have fallen for this one temptation and still when i come and ask forgivness he forgives me and then remebers it no more. but when i come to ask for forgivness for a sin. he dosnt just see that ive done it over and over in the past... he also sees that i will do it over and over again in the future. but still even tho he knows i will do it again next weak he still pats me on the head and says "hey its all right.. i forgive you." thats blows my mind that he could fogive me for a sin thaat he knows i will fall too so very soon after he forgave me. just how mercifull is the God we serve?

 

 

 

 

on another note. yes i do doubt my salvation at times and and sometimes even doubt that theres a God.  because i think well how could i be doing this sin that im doing and still have the mercy of God waiting just waiting for me to repent so He can bless me again?? but i just have to come back to the scripture where He said "but as many as will receive Him to them gave he power to become the sons of God even to them that beleive on his name." no what?? im NOt good enough for that. im NOT deserving of that in the least. but to doubt that im saved is not doubting that im good enough to be saved it is in effect doubting that Christs blood is not good enough to keep me saved. im not worthy but my debt has been paid bye the only One who is worthy. and whenever i run into a person that thinks they can lose there salvation. i simply ask them... so you think you can do somethign bad enough to nullify the sacrifice of Christ??? the blood of Christ??? taht annoys me that people are so proud that they think they can actually do something to make Calvary of non-effect. its the same with people who add works to there salvation, people that say well yes you do have to call on God to be saved BUT you also have to do this to be saved. such as baptism. (not saying baptism isnt right. just that you dont HAVE to be baptized to be saved.) bye saying that people are indulging themselves in the worst type of pride possible in saying that there is something they can do that Christ couldnt on calvary. ok ok i know im getting way off subject here but ill stop now.

 

S.S.

I'm not totally sold that you can't lose your salvation. It's not thats its based on works but in the same sense of James (show me your faith by what you say I'll show you mine by what I do) concept it is reversible. I firmly believe we have a choice always. So I don't think Satan can force us to sin but I do believe man can walk away. I know calvanists usually say then he was never saved but then this leads to..no one could know if they are truly saved until they die in the faith.

 

I have found that both those who say you can and those who say you can't have been very strong christians as examples.

 

If anyone has heard of Kieth Green he denied eternal security yet he stated that he would not endorse you can lose your salvation.

At this same time God used him is powerful ways. I think again that Love was the factor and not his theological mind.

I don't think people are bringing down the blood of Christ when they say they believe that. Nor do I believe one belives they have a liscense to sin because they say you cannot.

 

I just think people go too far with a position that they offend others. Like I said Shadow, I am not convinced one can or can't. I simply say God holds the gabble not me. As far as understanding the laws of judgement....well I'll leave that to the judge.

 

End times is a big debate that people get sooooo ticked off over. I'm usually thinking...Dude we know soooooooo little about this.

but like pharisees and Saducees we think we are sooooooo hot. All I can say is Humble thyself at the side of the Lord.

 

And p.s. if anyoen reading this has not heard Keith Greens Music GO NOW and order the silver and gold collection.

YOU WILL BE BLOWN AWAY. If you can get his book "no compromise" get it. You will be so encouraged.

 

Hope to be CS'in with you all soon. I'm still in 1.5 till 1.6 gets worked out

it won't work for me.

 

Auggybendoggy

[dwEEziL]

I personally feel that one can lose his/her salvation. The Bible says that no one, not even Satan, can pluck you out of God's hand but it doesn't say that you can't choose to jump out of it. Hebrew 6 speaks of the Perils of Falling away. IMO, the terminology there does not speak of those debating salvation but rather those who have accepted already (it says those who have fallen away would have to crucify Christ again for salvation).

 

Now, who is to say when someone has gone so far that they have lost their religion? Not I. The Bible states that there is only one judge and that is Christ, and instead of judging us, He is at God's right hand interceding for us. So, as believers, we are to continuing praying for our backslidden friends, never giving up hope.

[Playaa]

the debate on losing your salvation has gone through my head ALOT in the past year. I grew up in a Baptist church and recently took myself to a church of the "Christian" denomination (It's fun to mess with that cause I tell my baptist friends that I'm finally a Christian instead of a Baptist)....

the Baptists believe you will never lose salvation (I mean the actual denomination not the people)

the Christians believe you can GIVE UP your salvation (denomination again)

I fought within myself

 

the conclusion I came to after doing months of research is that yes you can reject the gift God gives.....but I'm never going to do it....nothing in this life could cause me to say "God....screw you." because then I'd be telling him to screw me anyway.

like I said in the beginning of this topic....I CANNOT deny the evidence I see....it's just not possible.

 

 

 

side note: one of the verses that really caught my attention when studying this:

Matthew 24:13

 

people are always arguing over the Hebrews chapter but they miss small versus like that.

[ConGregation]

That verse in Matthew is talking about a tribulation period. It talks about atrocities happening and then it says "He that endures to the end shall be saved". Take it out of context and it makes it mean something entirely different.

 

Hebrews 6 is an enigma to some degree. IF it means you can lose your salvation than it means that you can never get it back once you lost it. I personally feel it is dealing with someone who the truth of salvation is revealed to yet does not really receive it. That is where the phrase "there remaineth no more sacrifice for them"... saying that if you reject Christ's sacrifice you have no other recourse. But I agree that it can be confusing.

 

I personally go at it from what we know of God's nature. God calls us (christians) His sons. I know its simple but nothing I do can change the fact that my father is my father. Even if I totally deny his existence the DNA tells a different story.

[dwEEziL]

Well, if you look at the parable of the Prodigal Son, you see the one son leaving his father's house and doing his own thing. The father was waiting and hoping for his return but if the son had never came back, he wouldn't have experienced his father's love, mercy, and charity again.

[ConGregation]

Yeah. That's exactly it.

 

I have a message I preach about the Prodigal Son, its my favority message to preach. Just preached it last week in the jail (always a great place to preach it). But its all about relationship with God. We all stray from the Father's house. Some farther than others. If I'm away than my relationship (or lack thereof) only bothers me. I dont experience the love and peace (fruit of the spirit) but rather the Holy Spirity convicts me. Not pleasant.

 

But nothing could change his position with the Father. You might say the father could disown him (not a biblical principle) but that would only mean he didnt receive the inheritance. He would still be the progeny of his father. I feel as a christian that I forfeit many blessing that God has for me (fruit of the Spirit again) and even lose rewards (crowns etc) in Heaven, but I'm his child. I dont know how your father was but my dad always told me that no matter what I did I could always come home. If the Prodigal's father had removed him from being his son, than there could be no reunion.

 

Just think about what the son did to that dad. He abandoned all the principles he had been taught. He disrespected his father by taking his inheritance while his dad was still alive (basically saying "I want the money more than you" and "I wish you were dead". He took what his father had worked for his entire life and saved up and wasted it in sinful pleasures. He drug his father's name through the muck and mire. What else could he have done to lose the position he was born to. I think God very specifically called our conversion a "birth". He calls himself our father and calls us his son. I think was very careful about what "earthly" relationship he compared our relationship to.

 

Man you got me thinking about that message Dont get me started on that one cause, like I said, I love to preach it.

[ConGregation]

Ok, I'll share the crux of the message cause it does kinda relate to this discussion.

 

Remember what the Prodigal prepared to say to the Father? "Father, I have sinned against Heaven and against thee. I am no more worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of my hired servents." Remember how the father never let him finish his speech. Im sure the son was suprised by the fathers response when he came home. I know if I came home after wasting what my dad had worked for his entire life, I would be apprehensive to say the least. But the father runs to meet him and falls on his neck and kisses him. Im not sure he expected that.

 

But then he starts his prepared speech. Right after he says "I am no more worthy to be called thy son" the father interrupts him. Interesting. He had heard enough.

 

I point out that it was a true statement. To be called the son of God (I John 3:1) is amazing to say the least. I could NEVER say that I was worthy of that title. Never! In fact I am so unworthy. I dont deserve a thing from God. I can never earn anything from God because what he gives is worth more than I could ever give to Him. Unworthy <---me

 

But then I point out that it wasn't a true statement. He says "no more worthy". If the truth were to be told, he was NEVER worthy. He was born into that position. He did not earn it. He didnt do anything to deserve it. It was a position that he assumed based on nothing other than he was given life by the man he called father. In my position with God I was never worthy of it. I didnt earn it. I dont or cant do anything to deserve it. I assumed that position because God gave me life.

 

Notice how the father treats this young man. He is very kind to him. He is happy to see him. He takes care of him (clothes, shoes, ring and feast). The son, who considered himself not worthy to be a son, just wanted to be a servant because being his father's servant was better than being the "world's" servant. But he was suprised by the father's love.

 

It all comes down to this, The son says "I am no more worthy to be called thy servant". What does the father do? Berate him for his transgressions? Take the opportunity to "instruct" the son? Moan about his losses? Nope. The son says "Im not worthy to be called thy son" and the father in the very next verse says "Kill the fatted calf and lets us eat and be merry. For this my son is alive again. He was lost and is found" Notice what he said there? He turned right around and called him his son.

 

I come to God totally ashamed. Only losses to show him. Transgression to regret. I hang my head in shame and say I'm not worthy to be your son. I am not worthy to be called a christian. God who is full of grace picks me up. He turns me around and as we face the Heavenly he hosts, he points to me and says... "MY son"

 

Boy do we ever have a wonderful father!

 

Sorry for the long post. Probalby nobody will read it cause its too long. Just really enjoy those truths.

[Bubblegum Bandit]

Nice posts Rev....very inciteful and actually got me thinking about a bible study session from a few weeks ago. We were studying Ephesians(sp?) and got into a pretty heated debate over whether God had "chosen people" or if his "gift" is extended to anyone. I personally feel that anyone can receive the grace of God, but allow me to play the role of Devil's Advocate that something in you last post got me thinking about.

 

When I read, "He was born into that position. He did not earn it. He didnt do anything to deserve it. It was a position that he assumed based on nothing other than he was given life by the man he called father.", I can't help but feel that this in some way promotes the idea of a "chosen people" in which were born of his grace and therefore only they can recieve it. I don't really think this is what you were getting at, but I am curious of your thoughts(or anyone else's for that matter) on how this may lead to that idea.

 

To make this more relevant to the original topic, I have many times talked to friends who feel like they are unworthy because of their sins, and therefore must not be one of God's "Chosen People" and think that his grace is not there for them to accept.

Edited September 17, 2003 by Bubblegum Bandit

[auggybendoggy]

Few things should be noted when rekoning the prodigal son. Alot of people use this as proof of not losing salvation but remember its a parable.

First off the position of the sons start (before leaving) is not a personal one but rather resembles mans position (relationship) to God. It was not as though the son was adopted, or a step child (red headed)

 

Man walked with God (Adam) and then LEFT.

this is the son living with the father at the start

 

Man Falls from grace

The son leaves home

 

The son returns to his father

But God through his son shows mercy (the father forgives those who have left but repented).

 

It is not endorsingthe following:

Even though you went out and lived a life of sin, you had a place by my side all along.

 

No it is stating, though you are wicked I can and will forgive you if you will turn to me. I will take you back.

 

so its really not a true example of not losing salvation.

 

The fact that the father killed the fat calf basically rids all arguments that "If I live a life of sin after my salvation, then I lose rewards and crowns and stuff like that"....according to the above logic of the prodigal, you will be rewarded for sinning and then returning. So he didn't lose nothing he got rewards no matter what

 

Again this must be looked at carefully. All it means is that Eternal life with God is our inheritance. It isnt stating that rewards will not be lost nor is it stating one cannot lose their salvation.

 

The same is true of the argument...

A son is a son is a son...we cannot change this no matter what we do. The father and son is more about relationship rather than DNA.

These are examples and just that.

 

I learned alot about taking what it does say rather than what it does not. God is merciful and full of love, Even for Lunk (heehee)

 

My point is be careful taking things too literal to prove your points. Rather analyze these things carefully. Jesus was not trying to prove the inability to lose salvation but rather was expressing Gods love and mercy for a wicked people. To take things too literal all the time can be disasterous. Just talk to a pretribber (heehee)

 

Sincerely,

 

Auggybendoggy (headshot)

yea right as if I could aim. Its more like Auggybendoggy 1 kill - 49 deaths

[dwEEziL]

Very good posts Rev (I read them all ). And I agree that God doesn't just give salvation then take it away but there is scriptural proof that God will, if you persist, turn you over to the wickedness of your mind. It happened at Sodom and Gamorrah as well as the Pharoh of Egypt (true, there is not proof that they were saved, rather proof to the opposite).

 

Again it comes down to the free will that God has given us. Even though we do nothing to gain the wonderful inheritance of eternal communion with Him, we also have the choice to walk away. Now, does this mean we lose that inheritance and are doomed to eternal fire or does this just mean that we forfeit some of the "treasures being built up in heaven for us"? I don't know.

 

Again I go back to Hebrews. I personally don't feel this is speaking about non-believers who have been shown the wonders and glory of God and still refused, non-believers do this every day, but yet God is still extending His love and mercy to them. The reason they would have to crucify Christ again to gain salvation is because (again, my opinion) they were there and they turned away. They rejected the gift they had received so another sacrifice would be necessary for them. Also, if I am not correct, Hebrews was written to believers not unbelievers so this warning would have been, pardon the expression, but preaching to the choir if it was meant for unbelievers (not to mention the fact that the target audience wouldn't have heard it).

 

I have also been taught, following the belief that one could fall so far away and into his/her depravity that they lose their salvation, that if one is concerned that they have gone too far, they haven't. If someone had fallen that far, they wouldn't care anymore about it.

[Playaa]

That verse in Matthew is talking about a tribulation period. It talks about atrocities happening and then it says "He that endures to the end shall be saved". Take it out of context and it makes it mean something entirely different.

actually after looking at my notes that I did on this subject for myself I had come to that same conclusion.....when I made that post I had forgotten that........so much for remembering what I studied.

[White Knight]

Interesting read yall.

 

As an Errant Christian (my term, from the latin word Errant, which means "he wanders"), I have a few select questions for any who would care to answer and debate.

 

1. The Bible says that any who does not follow Jesus Christ is going to hell. This damns 80% of the world. How is that justifiable that a kind loving god, with infinate power and wisdom would damn 80% of the world?

 

2. The Old Testament is a proven historical document. The New Testament is not. The Gospel's attributed to different apostles were not written by them, and in fact the original New Testament was put together by the Catholic Church during the 3rd century AD from MANY religious christian books (somewhat more than 100), yet the church feels the desire to act like these texts actually were written by the apostles (which is doubtful) and treats the words stated by characters in them as if they were what they actually said. Anyone have comments on this?

 

3. We look back at ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, Myans, et all and laugh at their silly mythologies, though they strongly believed in their beliefs the way we believe in ours. How can we be sure that 1000 years from now people won't be looking back at our silly mythologies?

 

Ok, meant to right more, but gotta run to a meeting. I'm not attacking your faith as Christians, I'm tryin to make yall think. Its questions like these that has made my faith in God stronger. The downside is that the answers have made my faith in Modern Oraganzied Christianity significantly less.

[Playaa]

well heck White...no offense but if you let those things weaken your faith man....you didn't pay enough attention.

1) God isn't damning anyone....he's giving every single person out there the choice and plenty of evidence to look at. Those who are damned are damned by choice. I have always found the idea that God is screwing us over to be comical. As americans (and some Canadians) we're amazingly spoiled. We want the entire world to bow before us and we want God to make it easy for us and just come down here and get on TV and say: "Look, I tried to show you but simply put....here I am....want some lighting? ZAP! want flying chimpanzee's? DUCK!....it's rather simple see?" Well we don't get that and we need to stop whining that we actually hafta put some work into ETERNITY!

 

2) the New Testament IS a historically proven document. You haven't searched that hard on it have you? Ever heard of Flavius Josephus? He was a Jewish (and therefore naturally AGAINST Christ) historian who wrote hundreds of historical documents that prove the things from the New Testament yet aren't a part of the new testament.

exerpt from one of Josephus's documents:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the]Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

if you say the New Testament isn't historically accurate....well you need to do some more research before you make that kind of claim.

 

3) because our mythologies aren't silly. Greek mythologies and such were around not too long before Christ and yet they died out WELL before Christ came into the world. They didn't last thousands of years....Christ has. As for how old the "stories" about God are....check out this little flash thing on the ancient chinese language (first written language ever in history)

 

sorry if you find my post insulting but all I'm saying is you need to actually work harder at researching before you let your faith be ruined by something that isn't the truth.

[ConGregation]

Nice post Playaa.

 

Some good discussion in here. As far as eternal security...

 

Nope, there is not aclearly stated verse that says that no matter what, a christian can never be danger of losing it. I see it implied but others see the opposite. But think about it... Sin cannot be the cause for our falling away. God's grace is sufficient or as it says in Ephesians "the exceeding riches of his grace". If God only saved us from our past sins, nobody would make it until they went to Heaven. So we believe he saved us from future sins when we became a christian. Can He only forgive little sins? Or maybe medium sins? How do WE know what sins are big and what sins are little? I think its not a doctrine taught that sins can make a christian lose it.

 

So what do we have to do? Lose our faith? I could see that one argued (even though that is a sin ). This is the one thing that we have to have in order to be saved. So if we lose that I could see the argument that we lose salvation.

 

But I feel that salvation is a life changing experience. The Bible compares it to new man and an old man. The one Im thinking of specifically is "We are a new creature, old things are passed away, all things are become new. We know that we get an indwelling of the Holy Spirit when we are saved. We are different. Some scripture would indicate that God gives us the faith to be saved but that line of thought would just drive us back to the election/free will debate . I just feel that with the changes God made to us that it would be hard to (if not impossible) to lose that faith. So when we lose our salvation does all the changes God made just revert back to their heathen form?

 

Basically in the faith thing, I think if you really got it than to really turn away from it would be a major proposition. And one I cant see happening. I've known many christians who basically turned their back on God for many years. But their testimony after they came back was that even though they would deny it on the outside, inside they KNEW it was the truth.

 

For me it is the nature of our God (whatever you believe about the parable the father always represents God) and the nature of our conversion.

 

Anyway I feel very firmly about this so expect me to come at it from a pre-conceived position.

[ConGregation]

Nice posts Rev....very inciteful and actually got me thinking about a bible study session from a few weeks ago.  We were studying Ephesians(sp?) and got into a pretty heated debate over whether God had "chosen people" or if his "gift" is extended to anyone.  I personally feel that anyone can receive the grace of God, but allow me to play the role of Devil's Advocate that something in you last post got me thinking about.

 

When I read, "He was born into that position. He did not earn it. He didnt do anything to deserve it. It was a position that he assumed based on nothing other than he was given life by the man he called father.", I can't help but feel that this in some way promotes the idea of a "chosen people" in which were born of his grace and therefore only they can recieve it.  I don't really think this is what you were getting at, but I am curious of your thoughts(or anyone else's for that matter) on how this may lead to that idea.

 

To make this more relevant to the original topic, I have many times talked to friends who feel like they are unworthy because of their sins, and therefore must not be one of God's "Chosen People" and think that his grace is not there for them to accept.

I think we kinda talked a little about this earlier in the thread. Although this can be argued both ways and both ways could produce many scriptures to support their agenda, I feel that the birth occurs when we come to God of our own free will. John 3 is where it is at. Jesus is talking with Nic and telling him about this second birth (salvation). He concludes his thoughts with John 3:16 through the end of the chapter which is basically saying we have to believe to acquire this second birth.

 

So I think when we come to God with faith and a request for forgiveness that he performs a miraculous transformation that is describes as a birth.

 

One thing I want to add, these truths are spiritual. A LOT of what scriptures deals with is spiritual and deals in the spiritual realm. The Bible says a "natural" man doesnt see this stuff (heck we only see it by faith which is saying we dont see it with our eyes at all). A lot of confusion can be eliminated with a true comprehension of that one fact.

[Playaa]

in fact the original New Testament was put together by the Catholic Church during the 3rd century AD from MANY religious christian books (somewhat more than 100), yet the church feels the desire to act like these texts actually were written by the apostles (which is doubtful) and treats the words stated by characters in them as if they were what they actually said. Anyone have comments on this?

 

a bit. You said yourself the Bible was put together from multiple letters and writings in the 3rd century AD. That's mostly true ( ). The Emperor Diocletian (the same emperor who used confessed Christians as torches to light his walkways at night) in 302 AD issued an edict that all books and writings sacred to the Christian religion were to be turned over and burned. Because of this the Christians said: "Well what DO we consider sacred?". They went out and forming a committee of ALL the churches known to them spent the next 90 YEARS studying the books and examining them with close scrutiny to make sure they were valid and all agreed. There were hundreds of works going around talking about Christ and there were false "gospels" travelling around as well. They didn't want any of these false teachings to get into the official Bible. Can you imagine spending 90 years studying something before you come to a conclusion? Many people talk as if the Bible was just "thrown together"....well that's totally false.

Then we can look at the accuracy of the "origional manuscripts". By that I mean the manuscripts copied and used of the origional Bible. The reason these are important is because many people claim that after so long the Bible can't be the same anymore through so many translations.

let's compare and find out why the Bible is so amazingly accurate.

 

Book | Time between Date Written and Date of earliest copy | number of "origional" copies

Homer's Illiad | 500 years | 643 copies

Plato's Tetralogies | 1200 years | 7 copies

Julius Ceasars Gallic Wars | 1000 years | 10 copies

Aristotle's Ode to Poetics | 1400 years | 49 copies

Official "New Testament" books | 80 years | 6,000 copies (if we include other writings with quotes or entire passages from the New Testament books the number goes to 25,000+)

 

see what I'm getting at there? We have over 6,000 documents with no errors about what happened and they were written only 80 years after the events. That seems like a long time but then you compare it to the other "historical documents" I mentioned and none of us question their validity at all. And we know these documents are all in agreement because of the way the scribes were forced to copy them. Here are a few rules the scribes had to follow(these were rules used in copying the Old and New testaments):

 

- Between each letter must be a space the size of a thread

- The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly at the end of a line

- The scribe must count each consonant, and indicate the center consonant (of every word after the word is written)

- If more than three mistakes occur (mistake could be something as small as a '.' or ',' out of place) the manuscript must be destroyed

- The manuscript must contain a certain number of columns equal throughout the entire book

- The scribe must copy letter by letter, not word by word.

- the scribe must count the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book (and the number must agree 100% with the set number)

- The scribe must count each word and indicate the center word (after each line is written)

 

those are just SOME of the rules followed.

 

 

I'm not sure where I was going with this post....I'm just trying to show that the Bible was not a book thrown together callously.......before you start believing things like that you need to actually do research and find out the truth.

[auggybendoggy]

your posts are all very good for both sides which only supports my feelings of doubt.

 

Again both sides can argue using scripture that I believe supports both. Many of these verses have been quoted already. But is there an answer. In speaking with my father in law (a extremely leanred man) he brought up the fact that this issue is debated by secularists. The notion that we are determined to live a pre-determined life by means of genetic instruction (pre-destination) vs. we are acting randomly upon our instincts and psycology and circumstances which can be altered (choice). Interesting huh?

 

Perhaps this is Matrix type of psych?

 

What ever the case, Thomas doubted but did not cease being a christian or apostle.

 

Auggy

[dwEEziL]

In regards to Playaa's post: For the record, Josephus was widely regarded as one of the foremost historians of his time.

 

In regards to Rev's post: Rev, I truly respect your point of view on this, knowing it comes from years of study, so don't take it personally if I disagree (I don't think you will, just putting that on the table). I have studied this myself and come to my conclusion, I didn't just make a random choice. And I totally agree with you. The arguments for and against it often use the same scripture that the other view does (just as the Pre-trib/Post-trib apologists do). All I know, when it comes down to it, is that Jesus loves me deeply and He made the sacrifice willingly for me. I am secure in my faith and know that His sacrifice is more than adequate for all my sins. When it comes down to it, I am not the one that can, let alone need to, make the judgement call as to whether someone has "gone to far". My "job" is to keep myself focused on Christ and to pray for my brethren and lost brethren.

 

In regards to Knight's post: Knight, I think Playaa answered most of your statements pretty well (though maybe not sufficient for you...but that is cool either way bro) but I did want to make one statement. Yes, God is Love and so it might be hard to reconcile the fact that He would allow millions of people to be condemned to eternal damnation but a lot of people forget the God is also Just. Just as a judge will not allow an infraction of the law to go without punishment, God CANNOT look over sin if the person does not follow the prescribed resolution set forth from God. God is unable to go against His nature. He has given Christ to die on the cross willingly so that His (Christ's) unblemished blood could pay the price for ALL sin (the Jewish sacrifices, while covering over the sin and allowing God to wait to pass judgement on it, was not sufficient to cleanse us of the sin because it came from a blemished vessel). All we have to do to resolve the sin issue in our lives is to accept Jesus as our personal saviour. God has given us the out. Those who will be condemned to eternal damnation are those that have not accepted this free gift.

[White Knight]

well heck White...no offense but if you let those things weaken your faith man....you didn't pay enough attention.

 

sorry if you find my post insulting but all I'm saying is you need to actually work harder at researching before you let your faith be ruined by something that isn't the truth.

Playaa, I do find it insulting, especially since you very obviously didn't READ what I posted (hello, I said I was a Christian...and thank you but I am VERY strong in my faith). I find it interesting that you feel so attacked by me asking questions...it almost makes me think you are afraid to question your own faith.

 

1. You didn't answer my question. If a person is born grows old and dies, never having heard of christianity he is going to hell, by Christian Doctorine. Almost as bad, if someone is raised in a place where the dominent religion is White_Knight worship, so never knows christianity, he is going to hell. Is this these persons fault, not necessarilly, how does one explain this (kind, loving God)? It is really easy to say that everyone that isn't Christian is going to Hell in America, but to assume that the other 80% of the world population is all going to hell is lunacy.

 

To be fair, I've asked Bishops, Priests and Ministers this exact question for years, and never gotten a good answer. It doesn't surprise me that you can't answer it.

 

2. Whatever man...are you saying that the book of Mathew was written by Mathew and in the chapter where it says...

Regaining his sight28 he said, "I see people, but they look like trees walking."

(8:24...randomly pulled from my Bible)...that actually happened like that.

 

Do you honestly think that there was a scribe sitting around writing down all this.

 

These books are from many stories that were put together...much the same as the Odessey was slowly put together by the greeks...a bunch of stories that were passed down from teller to teller throughout many generations until a person finally wrote them down.

 

I'm not saying the bible was "thrown together", I'm saying that the New Testament was a select set of many sources. 300 years after the fact is 12 generations in the ancient times...

 

All this of course does not make the New Testament invalid, the stories in them contain a great many parables on how we should live our lives. But to say that its a historically accurate representation of what happened over the course of two years is questionable.

 

because of the way the scribes were forced to copy them

This I find the most hilarious because it shows a total lack of understanding of history.

 

If you were to go read "The Age of Arthur, A History of the British Isles from 350 to 650" , John Morris Scribners Press (Library of Congress # 72-11121), in chapter 9 he goes into great detail on the Scribes of the 2nd through 12th centuries in Ireland (as I'm sure you know the Irish monks are responsible for saving Civilization during the dark ages). In it he discusses repeatedly how scribes 'changed' history to go along with their political beliefs. He makes some points on how in the Irish "Lives of Saints" every 'saint' covered that goes to Rome meets St. Peter and those that go to France (from Ireland) all meet Maximus (even though both of these people lived and died before the first "Life of Saint" was chronicalled). He closes with an analysis of how modern historians use ancient texts to discover what they think actually happened...which is by using only that which is not politically useful and treating that alone as fact. What is this an example of? Ancient scribes are NOT as reliable as modern media presents them to be.

 

Of course this is all a mute point because in the early days of Christianity there were not scribes diligently recording this information and copying it.

 

Did it ever occur to you that more than likely most, if not all of the Apostles were illiterate? I'm not insulting them, but would poor fisherman have the ability to write? More than likely not, meaning that the 'original' scoll of their lives w/Jesus would have began second hand. On top of the fact that the Apostles mostly died very soon after Christ limiting their time to record this information for posterities sake.

 

As for Flavius Josephus, perhaps you need to go read up on your sources. He was a jewish historian that wrote 27 books, but while his writings mention Jesus Christ (not something that is contested here) they do not validate the New Testament as a historical document. I invite you to go actually read what he wrote... (http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/JOSEPHUS.HTM).

 

Also, your 6000 number of matching texts refers to the Byzantine Text or Byzantine Manuscripts I believe. These documents, written in greek, trace to the end of the second century, no earlier. That is 7 generations during which no compiled manuscript of the New Testament exists...

 

3. You response is very interesting. Allow me to help you out a bit...

The Greek Mythology died out after the Roman conquests, though the Roman's morphed theirs to mimick the greeks (the Romans looking up to the Greeks). They did the same with their Code of Laws, and some of their political structure.

 

The Roman religion died out after Constantine the 1st, Emporer of Rome, decided that Rome was Christian. That pretty much killed the religion.

 

As for length of time...

Buddism is the oldest major religion in the world coming in at 2500 years.

The Jewish religion is of course much older than either (4000 years), but has never caught on.

The Ancient Egyptian religion began in about 2700 with the formation of the Old Kingdom and died out soon after the death of Cleopatra (circa 30 bc)...which is almost 2700 years.

 

Of cours length of time doesn't validate non "silliness".

 

sorry if you find my post insulting but all I'm saying is you need to actually work harder at researching before you let your faith be ruined by something that isn't the truth.

Really. Apparently I have a much better grasp on the Christian faith and history than you. I also find it funny that you look at 'questioning of faith' as a bad thing.

 

Actually, as I look over my writing here...I find it interesting looking from a historians perspective at your writing. The vast majority of your information is 2nd hand...as in someone told you that something says something...and look how much you are missing(Flavius Joseph, Byzantine Texts). If 1 degree of seperation can change information that much, it makes me ponder how much information can change of 7-12 generations can change something. Hmmm...interesting...

Edited September 20, 2003 by White Knight