DescentBB

[quote]Let me just briefly mention (since 1ACE1 brought it up) that the Bible doesn't always communicate things in a literal way -- there are a lot of parables, poems, analogies, and many other literary genres in the Bible.
[\quote]
Read my above post, I clearly stated what alegory, and such is in the Bible. I also read part of the link you gave. I found error in the first paragraph of the body statement. She was comparing the parables, and Genesis! You just can't do that. They are two different languages, and before Jesus spoke a parable, it would generally say something like: "He spoke to them a parable saying." You don't find anything like this in Genesis. Go read the Psalms, you find actual events in there.


Lothar, in reply to your above post:

Thats what I am speaking of, Catholics hate to take the whole Bible as it was meant to. So you took theology courses...I really don't think it matters if what you were taught is that the major points of the Bible aren't real. What I am speaking of is somethings that I have studied. I have myself translated the Genesis creation account, and some of the Psalms among other things. I have sat under, and learned from men who make studying Hebrew, and Greek their lives. When Hebrew is in any way speaking metaphorically, you see things like total change in sentence structure, change in use of the coordinating conjunction. The changes in sentence structure are the most awesome; they are far beyond my ability to fully explain, but what I have translated was much harder. You see paralellisms, and a cadence which makes the poetry that we know in English seem childs play. What are you talking about not winking at molestations? These aren't the first, and what has been done about it by the Catholic church?

http://www.reachingcatholics.org/bishops_only.html

The above link discusses part of the aspect of Cathlolic salvation which is extrabiblical. Where do you find that you need to be baptized to go to heaven in the Bible? Where do you find that Peter is the head of the church? That passage is obviously not about Peter. The rock that Jesus built his, not Peters church, on was that Jesus is the Son of God, and He is all that is needed for salvation. Mass will never get you to heaven. Baptizing babies is not in the Bible. Mary isn't even Holy, nor is she a virgin. Yet she is put above God in many respects by the Catholic church at large. We go to God, not Mary to pray. What about the Catholic crusades? That was nothing more than a power trip for the pope. What about the thousands of true believers who were burned because they believed in the infalibility of God's word, and wanted to give it to the people. William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. Where do you get the reason to spend all the money and wealth without distributing to the poor. Why does the pope keep the billions of dollars flowing through the Catholic church without helping those with need. Have you seen the tons, and tons of Gold used in european churches? Much of that was from people who were told that paying that would pay their way into heaven. The Catholic church has pelnty of money, why does the pope charge so much to get people into heaven? Why did he close the doors which supposedly gave eternal life? I am reminded of something Jesus said about the Pharisees:

Taken from Luke 11:

37Now when He had spoken, a Pharisee asked Him to have lunch with him; and He went in, and reclined at the table.

38When the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal.

39But the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness.

40"You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also?

41"But (AF)give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you.

42"But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

43"Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the synagogues and the respectful greetings in the market places.

44"Woe to you! For you are like concealed tombs, and the people who walk over them are unaware of it."

45One of the lawyers said to Him in reply, "Teacher, when You say this, You insult us too."

46But He said, "Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers.

47"Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and it was your fathers who killed them.

48"So you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers; because it was they who killed them, and you build their tombs.

49"For this reason also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute,

50so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation,

51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'

52"Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering."

53When He left there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to be very hostile and to question Him closely on many subjects,

54plotting against Him to catch Him in something He might say.

1ACE1 wrote:I also read part of the link you gave. I found error in the first paragraph of the body statement. She was comparing the parables, and Genesis! You just can't do that.

Why can't you compare the two? You say you "just can't", but you provide very little justification. You're basically just outright rejecting the argument without reading more than the first few paragraphs (and you even misunderstood the analogy in the paragraph you criticized!), based on the a priori and unjustified idea that you "just can't" compare the genres.

Here's what she said:

Drakona wrote:There is the assumption that Genesis 1 must be history because the rest of Genesis obviously is. This hardly makes sense to me, any more than the parable of the sower must be history because most of the book of Matthew describes the literal events of Jesus' life.

She's hardly calling Genesis 1 a parable -- she's just saying, you can't decide "Genesis is a history book and therefore Genesis 1 is history", any more than you can say "Matthew is a history book and therefore the parable of the sower is history" or "psalms are poetry and therefore psalm 22 can't be prophecy".

She's not saying Genesis 1 IS a parable (yet) -- she's just saying, you can't determine a chapter's genre just by determining the book's genre, and she uses parables as an example. What's unreasonable about that?

I challenge you: read the whole post, from start to finish. If you want to argue against it, put up a better argument than "you can't compare Genesis 1 to parables". I'm not going to take seriously any critique that comes from reading and misunderstanding just a couple paragraphs.

before Jesus spoke a parable, it would generally say something like: "He spoke to them a parable saying."

Generally? No, not really -- go search the Bible for the word "parable" (thusly). I'll just count the parables in Matthew, noting which ones use the word "parable" somewhere other than in the section heading (since section headings are inserted in the English version, not in the original text):

Matthew 13: Sower, weeds, mustard seed, yeast, hidden treasure, pearl, net - called "parable" in the text
Matthew 15: teaching on clean and unclean - called "parable" in the text
Matthew 18: lost sheep, unmerciful servant - NOT called "parable" in the text
Matthew 20: workers in the vineyard - NOT called "parable" in the text
Matthew 21/22: two sons, tenants, wedding banquet - called "parable"
Matthew 25: ten virgins, talents - NOT called "parable"

In the 6 distinct blocks of parables, the text explicitly calls them "parables" only half of the time. If you'd read a couple more sentences, Drakona made the same point -- Jesus didn't always say "I'm about to tell a parable". Sometimes He says He's about to, or sometimes the author says He taught in parables, or sometimes he's asked after the fact what the parable meant -- but sometimes it doesn't say.

It's like that for most genres. You don't always get warning when there's a song coming up; sometimes it's just quoted and you have to recognize "oh, that's a song."

Thats what I am speaking of, Catholics hate to take the whole Bible as it was meant to.

First: I'm not Catholic. Sorry, try again.

Second: Reread my section on interpretation. The whole point is taking the Bible as it was meant -- that is, as the original author originally intended it.

So you took theology courses...I really don't think it matters if what you were taught is that the major points of the Bible aren't real.

Nope, I've never taken a theology course.

I've developed my theology through careful, prayerful, systematic study of the Bible and through discussion with others who've done the same. And, as you'd know if you took the time to follow most of the other links I posted, I consistantly uphold every major teaching of the Bible as real, even those teachings I'm not comfortable with.

The fact is, I hold to the interpretation of Genesis 1 that I do because I think it fits the text best. Granted, I don't speak Hebrew (though my wife has studied it quite a bit), but I've used every tool I have available to try to get at what the passage really means. The details are there in the post you read the first paragraph of. Go read the whole thing.

When Hebrew is in any way speaking metaphorically, you see things like total change in sentence structure, change in use of the coordinating conjunction. The changes in sentence structure are the most awesome; they are far beyond my ability to fully explain, but what I have translated was much harder. You see paralellisms, and a cadence which makes the poetry that we know in English seem childs play.

Give me more detail.

What about the Catholic crusades? That was nothing more than a power trip for the pope.

Um, no -- they were a response to militant Islamic aggression by the Pope and most of Europe.

What about the thousands of true believers who were burned because they believed in the infalibility of God's word, and wanted to give it to the people.

The Catholics weren't the only people who burned other believers at the stake. When the anabaptists said "you should baptise people when they're adults and have made a commitment to Jesus", they got burned at the stake by Catholics AND Protestants. (What denomination are you, by the way? I'm a Mennonite -- one of those pesky anabaptists the rest of Christians used to burn at the stake.)

If you're going to criticize a group for what they did 500 years ago, make sure your own group isn't guilty of the same.

Thats what I am speaking of, Catholics hate to take the whole Bible as it was meant to. I have myself translated the Genesis creation account, and some of the Psalms among other things. I have sat under, and learned from men who make studying Hebrew, and Greek their lives. ... I am reminded of something ...

Yeah, me too

Great Lord in heaven, where DO I want to start?

... without helping those with need.
Never heard of any Catholic charitable organizations, both church and laity sponsored, have we. Sorry, maybe if I wrote it in Hebrew ...

...why does the pope charge so much to get people into heaven?
Really!! How much is it? Can you tell me? I'd really like to know. Must be the deal of the century.

...When Hebrew is in any way speaking metaphorically, you see things like total change in sentence structure, change in use of the coordinating conjunction. The changes in sentence structure are the most awesome; they are far beyond my ability to fully explain, but what I have translated was much harder. You see paralellisms, and a cadence which makes the poetry that we know in English seem childs play.
Now this sounds like it could be pretty interesting to read about. Care to provide any links to references that describe this pattern of behaviorr in Hebrew? I'm always in the market to expand my horizons a bit.

... Mary ...Yet she is put above God in many respects by the Catholic church at large.
False. I'm sure some people do do this. They are heretics.

...What about the Catholic crusades?
I'd say that taking them out of their historical context and calling them power trips is more than a little ridiculous.

...What about the thousands of true believers who were burned
That's right, and the good ol' Bible-believing Protestants never killed anybody in the name of Christianity. Life came cheaper all around in earlier centuries (heck even today!) and whoever was in power often wielded that power brutally at times. Best argument I can think of against a state church.

I'm tired; I'm going to take a nap now.

Is all this the 1%, or lack of study?

"lack of study" falls within the 1%. It's not a separate category.

[edit]
By which I mean, those who've read the Bible but haven't studied it properly or adequately -- whose doctrinal errors come from misunderstanding the text. Those who actually haven't even read it don't really count when we're talking about "interpretation" since it's kind of hard to interpret something you've never read. People who haven't read it fall outside of the scope of the statement.
[/edit]

Creation / Evolution is a mix of lack of study, philosophy where the Bible is silent, and agenda. It's part of the 1%.

Most of the Catholic / anti-Catholic stuff here is an argument about history and current individual behavior (there's disagreement over the basic facts of who did / does what), not particularly about what the Bible says. It's not even a part of the 100%. It's a different subject.

A small part of the Catholic / anti-Catholic stuff is actually based on Biblical disagreements. Most of that comes down to "use of different sources", though some of it really does come down to lack of study or flawed study methods. And when you think about it, the Bible is a couple thousand pages long and we're disagreeing on about 3 pages worth here. That's definitely well within the 1%.

We definitely agree on a lot more than we agreed on back in the 1500's.

Ooops, sorry Lothar, I meant to address that one paragraph to Top Gun.

I would probably be considered to be a conservative evangelical protestant. Like I said, not all of the parables are given warning of, but many are.

These links seem to give a good overview of what I am talking about with Hebrew poetry:

http://home.apu.edu/~geraldwilson/HebrewPoetry.html

http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/topics/theme4.htm

The creation account in Genesis does not contain these attributes. It is actually a beginner passage, which is why I translated it for the class I took.

Well....sorry, but reading the lengthy dialogs which usually develop in these kinds of posts, none of the questions really get answered and I just get driven deeper into the no god world. That world for me explains everything and as I've always asked myself what kind of world would this be if god did not exist...the answer always comes out "this one".

No offense to anyone, and this is always an interesting subject, but I just wanted to answer the original posters question with my opinion. See you guys in the mines.

Bettina

bet51987 wrote:Well....sorry, but reading the lengthy dialogs which usually develop in these kinds of posts, none of the questions really get answered and I just get driven deeper into the no god world.

Bettina

You are absolutely right Bettina.

The original question:
Can you please explain how one can have free will when god has a plan? If god has a plan how can anything you do be considered free will at all? Is this a new concept invented by people trying to explain away their poor behavior?

In all the preceding commentary I saw few, if any, scripture citations. Since this is a question about God, would it not be logical to get God's opinion? If he did inspire the Bible, if the Bible is God's instruction book for mankind, then we should be able to find all the answers there. Filling our debates with human philosophy and supposition will only lead to more unproductive debate. As Bettina said, the original question was never really answered.

God's original â??planâ?

Do you have any hermenutical principles?

You took each and every one of those verses grossly out of context, and missaplied them.

I'll just cite your first statement:

[quote]
This, however, does not mean that God guides and â??plansâ?

Holy buckets!
I thought i'd check the E&C and read the thread. You people ain't joking. Good on ya. It still means precisely jack to me but you'll do a great dance. I guess I have to die to know.

Anyways... thanks for the angles. It is eye opening.

1ACE1 wrote:
This is not saying that because Adam disobeyed Gods command, God had to change plans. Gods ultimate purpose is His glory, and those whom he foreordained to salvation are part of that plan. When you quote something like that, you also need to take it into context.

Actually I think the flaw in my argument is not quoting enough scripture. This is a BB so I wanted to keep it brief.

God's purpose will always be fulfilled, read Isaiah 55:11. As he told Adam, God wanted the human race to fill the earth. It has, but with very little intervention on his part (the Babel account is the most intrusive God has ever been on a world-wide scale (except of course for the Flood).

What was foreordained regarding salvation was the ransom supplied by God in the form of Jesus, which, if accepted by us, blots out the sin inherited from Adam.

The fact is, God warns us to be careful:

â??Let the one who is standing beware he does not fall,â?

Shoku wrote:

1ACE1 wrote:
This is not saying that because Adam disobeyed Gods command, God had to change plans. Gods ultimate purpose is His glory, and those whom he foreordained to salvation are part of that plan. When you quote something like that, you also need to take it into context.

Actually I think the flaw in my argument is not quoting enough scripture. This is a BB so I wanted to keep it brief.

God's purpose will always be fulfilled, read Isaiah 55:11. As he told Adam, God wanted the human race to fill the earth. It has, but with very little intervention on his part (the Babel account is the most intrusive God has ever been on a world-wide scale (except of course for the Flood).

What was foreordained regarding salvation was the ransom supplied by God in the form of Jesus, which, if accepted by us, blots out the sin inherited from Adam.

The fact is, God warns us to be careful:

â??Let the one who is standing beware he does not fall,â?

All right the two of you -


Pistols or sabers - AT DAWN !!!

Don't be late!

Opps.

1ACE1 wrote:
1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

You are absolutely correct. However, context must include not only the particular book being read (like Ephesians), but the context of the entire Bible.
Why? Well, if God's word is true, then what is said in one place must agree with what's stated elswhere. There is only one truth, so what we discern in one place must harmonize with the rest. If it doesn't, then perhaps our understanding is not accurate.

Predestination is quite a lengthy subject to tackle, but here you are:

There are scriptures that deal with the Christian â??called ones,â?

I agree with some of what you said Shoku, but people are accountable for what they do regardless. God mereley chooses some for His greater glory. Everyone is given the choice to believe, or not. However, people can't choose that and are therefore suject to carnality while people who are chosen are bound by God while the flesh wars against God's work in them. God working in them gives them the power to overcome temptation more than an unchosen person. That is the way one can know a true believer or not. Though we as humans can still be deceived.

Can you show me the passage which speaks of 'blotting out' specifically? I think I remember something similar, and would like to study it and report results on that one. We do know that those who are saved have their names written in the 'Book of Life', but we don't see the Bible say anywhere that those who won't be saved can get their names written there. If God didn't predestine people, then He is not soverign, and His Word is erroneous. If we as addmitedly corrupt humans think that we can save ourselves, it is like saying that we did a work to get to heaven and forgiveness. God's gift goes beyond dieing. It extends to His chosing whom He will chose. We still don't see freewill appear anywhere in the Bible. Bring a passage, and discuss it. I haven't seen one that proves that man is under his own influence.

p.s.

lol at the pistols or sabers at dawn. I'd prefer sabers myself if they can be provided.

1ACE1 wrote: Can you show me the passage which speaks of 'blotting out' specifically? I think I remember something similar, and would like to study it and report results on that one. We do know that those who are saved have their names written in the 'Book of Life', but we don't see the Bible say anywhere that those who won't be saved can get their names written there. If God didn't predestine people, then He is not soverign, and His Word is erroneous. If we as addmitedly corrupt humans think that we can save ourselves, it is like saying that we did a work to get to heaven and forgiveness. God's gift goes beyond dieing. It extends to His chosing whom He will chose. We still don't see freewill appear anywhere in the Bible. Bring a passage, and discuss it. I haven't seen one that proves that man is under his own influence.

The scriptures I referred to above should answer your questions about the â??Book of Life,â?

[quote="Shoku"] Now to the letter to the congregation in Sardis:
â??These are the things that he says who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars, 'I know your deeds, that you have the name that you are alive (name in God's Book), but you are dead. Become watchful, and strengthen the things remaining that were ready to die, for I have not found your deeds fully performed before my God. Therefore, continue mindful of how you have received and how you heard, and go on keeping it, and repent. Certainly unless you wake up, I shall come as a thief, and you will not know at all at what hour I shall come upon you.
Nevertheless, you do have a few names in Sardis that did not defile their outer garments, and they shall walk with me in white ones, because they are worthy. He that conquers will thus be arrayed in white outer garments; and I will by no means blot out his name from the book of life, but I will make acknowledgment of his name before my Father and before his angels. Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.'â?

^^ Why didn't that quote work? ^^

wrong end quote slash. it should be /

Thanks

1ACE1 wrote: These verses are speaking of people who are already saved. They can't lose their salvation because they have been regenerated, and are known by their fruits. It doesn't say anywhere that they can have their names taken from the book of life. I looked at the Greek for this one and it strengthens one of the points I have been making. Before the verb which means 'to blot out' or 'remove,' we also see two negative particles. While in English this would bring the statement to the positive, in Greek negatives are repeated for emphasis. A better translation for those should be 'never ever' or something to that effect. The verb is also in the present tense, it shows no doubt, and is active. This verse is saying that those who are saved, God is never ever blotting their names out of the book of life. It doesn't say that the ones who don't repent will be removed. One cannot gather that those who aren't saved are given a choice as to whether or not their names are written in the book of life. It does; however, say that those who have repented and are saved, have their names in the book of life permanently. We know that these must have been elected by simply looking at Ephesians 1, which I quoted above.

Unfortunately you are not listening to your own advice, and paying attention to the CONTEXT of what is being said. As the scripture says:

"Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations."

You are looking at scripture with tunnel vision.

Don't just say something; back it up with specifics. I have brought specific information which had addressed your posts. You have not thusfar specifically addressed, by handling scripture properly, my posts. You have made blanketed statements, and don't respond when I respond to them. You merely say another 'thing' without addressing what had been said. You obviously didn't look at context, and that was what I was addressing there. I am not looking at the Bible with tunnel vision, I am very open to what the Bible has to say. I am not; however, open to unbiblical views. Your methods of interpretation reveal more of an eisegesis than exegesis. You quote and take someone through a long speal to bring them to some odd place of your interpretation of the Bible using wrong methods. You have not even addressed my quotes which are in perfect harmony with the verses you bring up (with the proper interpretation). There are a few rules when interpreting the Bible called hermenutical principles. I don't see you using any. You are imposing your will on what the Bible says, then interpreting it as such.

If you see a passage that seems to conflict with another, then one of your interpretations of it is wrong. The Bible does not contradict itself.

Alwasy take into consideration context.

The Bible is alwasy litteral unless something about the context says otherwise, or it is announced.

The Bible is infallible gramatically. This obviously only applies to the original Greek and Hebrew.


Those are some of the highlights, enjoy.

1ACE1 wrote: Don't just say something; back it up with specifics

I have, you haven't been paying attention.

1ACE1 wrote: If you see a passage that seems to conflict with another, then one of your interpretations of it is wrong. The Bible does not contradict itself.

What I said earlier: "You are absolutely correct. However, context must include not only the particular book being read (like Ephesians), but the context of the entire Bible.
Why? Well, if God's word is true, then what is said in one place must agree with what's stated elswhere. There is only one truth, so what we discern in one place must harmonize with the rest. If it doesn't, then perhaps our understanding is not accurate."
Again, you haven't been paying attention.

If you honestly examine the context of the scriptures I've sited, you should gain an understanding that spirit annointed Christian can fail, and lose their reward. Without re--stating everything that has been said, just consider the account in Revelation: This book is addressed to seven churches in Asia. The chruches (or congregations) are made up of spirit annointed christians, who "are made to be a kingdom, and priests." The Apostle John calls himself their "brother" (a fellow believer), and a "sharer" with them (obviously indicating they all had the same hope set before them). But Jesus warns some of these "brothers" that they are not living up to their calling. The NIV translation says it this way:

"To the . . . church in Sardis . . . I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard (holy spirit and the good news); obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come as a thief . . . Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy." (And this is the point, in context): "He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never erase his name from the book of life."

Jesus is telling the unfaithful Christians to Wake up! or die. and the point you must recognize is that these unfaithful have their names in the book of life, but are in danger of having them erased. Only if they wake up will their names not be erased, or blotted out!

And to continue: to the church in Laodicea, Jesus proclaims: "I am about to spit you out of my mouth!"
They also were not living up to their Christian responsibility. Jesus continues: "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent."

Again, these individuals were already "brothers," sharers with John in the faith, but they were in danger of losing everything. And that's the main point you just can't seem to get: Salvation, while a mercy to mankind, freely given by God, is dependant on how we adhere to God's righteous standards. That's why I quoted the following:

â??He who endures to the end is the one who will be saved,â?

You just said that the Bible is falible grammatically, and therefore your statement above of the Bible being true, and the only truth is a contradiction. Find a single error in the grammar of the Bible please, and don't just say something. If we all did that, nobody would get anywhere because people would just be saying things. You said that I don't know very much about Greek and Hebrew. Have you taken Greek and Hebrew? I have taken them, and still translate verses daily.

All of the verses cited above have nothing to do with a christian being alboe to lose their salvation. They are all speaking of Lordship salvation. You are saying it is one of works salvation. Read First John.

1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."

People that fall away, fall away because they were never truly regenerated. They are the ones described in the parable of the sower. They seem to bear fruit for a while, then they don't because they 'were not of us.'

I'm not going to bother reading the whole thread so I'll just reply to the original point. But before I go on, I'd like to assert that a lengthy thread on any subject in the Bible isn't necessary; if it were that complicated for people to believe enough to be Christians, few would be Christian!

That said, the question of free will vs "God's plan." What a grossly misunderstood issue. There is no issue, and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is full of crap, they haven't read their Bible.

God gives everyone free will, all us humans, all the angels in heaven, from the beginning of time, and it will be so until the end of time. That's that, end of story, it's that simple. Nothing else needs to be said.

As for "God's plan," well that's a load of crap the Christian church invented to confuse everyone. Does God have "plans" as we think of them? No one actually knows, and if He did, well there's no indication in the Bible. The Bible does reference countless times God knowing the future however, which is VASTLY different. I mean come on, for Christians who already believe in God, how hard is it to believe that the all-powerful God who made the UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT is also the master of time itself?

Asrale wrote:... how hard is it to believe that the all-powerful God who made the UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT is also the master of time itself?

The words "master of time itself" do not appear anywhere in the Bible.

As for the discussion regarding salvation etc. I would direct interested readers to a thorough discussion here and here. Discussion with scripture references and context - says it all, as far as I am concerned.

All I am saying in my latest posts is:

God predestined us:

Ephesians 1:
" 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love

5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

7In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

8which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight

9He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him

10with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him

11also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

12to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.

13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory."

Once you come to salvation through God, you bear fruit as a result of your conversion, and only those who do are truly saved:

1 John 2:

" 1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

3By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.

4The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;

5but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected By this we know that we are in Him:

6the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

7Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard.

8On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining.

9The one who says he is in the Light and yet (Y)hates his brother is in the darkness until now.

10The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him.

11But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes. "

If one is chosen by God, how can he ever lose his salvation? He can't because that is the same as saying that either a( God changed His mind, or b( God couldn't predestine anyone even though it is stated in the Bible.

I might as well throw in my opinion on the matter. I'd ay that Drak's first post directly dealing with Cop's question does a fairly good job... but I think you overlooked an important thing... I don't think that we, as "who we are," are static. I think the determinism you described (our choices are determined by who we are) is mostly true, but not completely. I think the relationship between what we choose and who we are goes both ways. I think our choices serve to form who we are, while at the same time, who we are serves to determine our choices. Furthermore, God has a dynamic hand in who we are, as well as what choices we make- He doesn't simply make us a certain way and sit back and watch us make choices because of what He has made. That, ultimately makes for a mock up freedom of choice, in the case the freedom of choice is only skin deep.

Here are the items that I would state as true, and how I reconsile it all into a cohesive unit.

1) God created man with free will- we can choose whatever we want, always.
2) God causes people to make certain choices at times.
3) God knows exactly what the entire future will be.
4) God holds people accountable for their choices, because of point 1.
5) Our choices are infuenced, but not determined by our surrounding atmosphere.
6) God has full control over our surrounding atmosphere (meaning, everything other than human beings).

So, how do those meet? Well, 1 and 3 can easily be simultaniously true- any time-independant observer can do this; simply watch what happens, rewind, and watch it again- the second time through you know exactly what is going to happen, even though you never had any influence over it.

1 and 2 can be a little bit more tricky... I tend to think of it as nudging. How did God harden Pharoah's heart? Well, I don't believe that he took away His free will- but there are a multitude of things that can influence someone toward one attitude or another. Modern psycology should demonstrate that well enough. Maybe God cause a number of things to happen that built up Phroah's ego to a sizable state (not surprising for someone who has most likely just recently overturned the greatest culture/military power of the time)... then lets assume that conviniently God caused the ideal building location for the most impressive of the Isrealite slave's works to be impressively shining right in front of him on his way to bed... He has a change of heart and decides not to let the Isrealite people go. I know... that's all speculation and storytelling, but the point is that with infinite control over everything around us, and how fickle the human species tends to be, it isn't too hard to influence people one way or another. Does free will go away? No. Does God have influence over what is chosen? Yes. That's the whole theory behind interrogation and torture, right? Keep on upping the ante until the person being interrogated decides that giving up the information is a better than whatever torture is threatened- free will is never taken away, just more weight is thrown toward one of the choices.

What you said somewhat conflicts; 1, 2, 5, and 6. One of my points is merely that people make choices based on what they are, and were influenced by. Everything is predetermined by God. God makes our influences, and allows Himself, or satan to influence us directly. We are accountable for everything we do because God did give us the ability to think congnatively. That in mind; God controls all the circumstances we are in that influence us to make decisions, and those decisions are based on who He made us to be. Think about it; God could have allowed you to be a homeless street beggar. Its kinda like a squirel running out into the road to get a nut. He goes out to get it, and gets hit by a car then dies. That animal had one thing controling himself: hunger. He could have had fear of a car if he was given that by God. He got what his deeds had earned him. It similar with us; we are influenced, made a certain way, and lead to salvation, or allowed to remain in a depraved state going to hell ultimately. Man is inherently wicked. If you don't believe that, then you must have never seen a small child. They don't have to be taught how to lie, and such; its just natural. So in the end we don't have control of our circumstances, or who we are, but God does. Since that is true, we don't ultimately have control of our destiny, and ultimately don't have 'free-will.'

Bah! Read this for some background.

I suppose I'll take one more hack at this... I finished reading the second page, and have a few thoughts... partly for Bet. (I know some of this has already been said and linked to, but maybe saying it again will add power to the argument, or something.)

First, I think the main way that I disagree with Tom & Catherine.. er Lothar and Drak is that I tend to focus on the dynamic nature of character, so I'll try to touch on that in a little more detail.

So, I think character is a dynamic thing, a thing that has huge impact on choices. (note, not quite absolute control)

So, here's what I think goes in to character: First, the way God makes us... we are certainly prone to one set of ways from the moment we are born. In some cases, I think God especially moves a person one way or another- I'm not going to try to assign a weight to each of these factors, because each person has a special combination of all of these.

Second, childhood. Primarily, parenting. The saying "Like father, like son" rings true most of the time. I think it's fairly well established that this is due to parenting, not genetic tendancies, as abopted children tend to be like their adopted parents, not their biological parents.

Third, choices. I think the choice process goes something like this: I think it originates in a person's nature, (which is also where habits reside) and "moves" from there to the brain, where it gets re-processed. One can choose to go against their nature, but it is generally a rare occurance. (As exemplified by Flabbie's comment about Lothar.)

At the same time, one's nature is a complex thing in itself, and I thin the innermost depths of one's nature can only be changed by God- namely what people would call man's "sin nature." Thus, many effects of the inner-most tendancy for evil can be cultured away through up bringing and personal choices, yet still the deep tendancy exists and must constantly be fought if it's effects are to remain unseen. Unfortunately, it's effect arn't always prevented even by the best of us- leading to people doing crappy things to each other- even "good" people. (Note, all of this is based on the philosophy that people are essentially evil.)

Thus, I see the cop out of "I'm predestined to do it" being eliminated. In a way we are predestined to mess up, but it is God's and society's expectation that we at least attempt to fight those tendancies. (Note that this tendancy for evil is not something that God intended to happen, but was introduced into all of us by inhertance, through Adam.)

If I missed anything there, or if I have any big holes in that, please let me know... I prefer to have well patched ideas about how things work myself.

Bet: I wasn't introduced to the formal idea of the communication process until college, so I can see where you are coming from... I know you've heard this before but I'll say it again- what you're doing is irresponsible communication- it happens all the time, but you don't have to sink to everyone else's level.

Language is an imperfect thing. Communication works like this: Person one has an idea and wants to communicate it to person two, so he uses language. Person one translates his idea into words, and says them. Person two hears the words, and translates them into an idea. I'm sure you have been misunderstood before, that's an example of the imperfection of language. So, when a writer writes something down, he has something specific that he/she wants to communicate, but can't perfectly. The reader's job, then, is to most accurately attempt to determine what the author actually wanted to communicate, not what he wants to hear as the reader. So, when it comes to details, a lot of times there is some room for question as to exctly what the author wanted to communicate. Now, when you get millions of people pouring over many copies of the same work over a period of thousands of years, pretty much all of those areas where there is room for question will be well identified and heatedly debated over and over again.

If that was bad enough, then throw in lots of people who don't pour over the work, take for granted what other people tell them about what it means, and then try to use it to further their own ambitions- that will make for a real mess. Add to that tradition that has developed over the years- traditions that don't have really anything to do with the Bible, but people treat as if it does, and you get the state that a lot of Churches are in these days.

My challenge to you: don't stay on their level. If you want to honestly and realistically challenge the Bible and God you're going to need to study it for yourself and find what you can for yourself instead of simply discounting it because you don't like it. Go and find what is wrong with the Bible and God, then challenge them. In the mean time, feel free to challenge and the people who have misrepresented the Bible to you all you want.

1ACE1 I disagree.

1 and 2 don't conflict because of symantics- I suppose "causes" has too wide of a symantic range for these purposes- would "influences" serve better? By causes I did not mean "forces" but more of a nudging. 5 and 6 serve to outline what I believe to be the mechanics of the nudging.

1ACE1 wrote:You just said that the Bible is falible grammatically, and therefore your statement above of the Bible being true, and the only truth is a contradiction. Find a single error in the grammar of the Bible please, and don't just say something. If we all did that, nobody would get anywhere because people would just be saying things. You said that I don't know very much about Greek and Hebrew. Have you taken Greek and Hebrew? I have taken them, and still translate verses daily.

I'll responed to this at the end.

Back to the original topic first:

It is a very sad thing when a search for Biblical truth stops halfway to the finish line. The only way to acquire an accurate understanding of God and his intentions, is to have a thorough knowledge of the Bible, and allow the Bible to explain what it means by examining not only context, but what it reveals about God in every respect. Allowing tradition or church doctrine to dictate our knowledge will only limit our understanding, and keep us from acquiring truth.

This discussion about God's plan and Man's free will has taken some interesting turns. However, it is quite clear from scripture that salvation is not predestined for the individual, each person will be accountable before GOD for their actions. Good men can fall from grace, just as evil men can turn around and gain salvation. Throughout the letters of the New Testament, Christians are admonished to continue in the faith, to not give up the fine fight, to have endurance, etc. If they do not, they are warned about losing the prize of salvation. This warning is not directed at those predestined to fail, it is directed at all Christians in an effort to help them maintain their standing with God.

Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians is addressed (as are all of his letters) to active Christians. â??We ought always to thank God for you, brothers, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more . . .â?

I just had to say this about your statement of the grammar in the bible being wrong. You haven't studied Greek from what you are telling me, so don't expound on its grammatical content. I haven't even heard from liberal sources that the Greek is incorrect. These things which do exist mean something. Many people also just don't have accurate knowlege of koine Greek. You get things like plural verbs with singular when refering to many as an entity. Many can't seem to understand this because things that happen in Greek don't happen in English. Greek is far more advanced than English, and very technical. Hebrew is much the opposite, and in some ways represents a limited language.

You just brought an arguement that something has an error; show me a passage so that I can analize it. You simply made a blanketed and unspecific statement.

Snoopy:
John 6:44"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

Only when drawn by God can someone come to salvation. God predestined us before the foundation of the world:

Ephesians 1:
" 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love

5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

6(R)to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

7(T)In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

8which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight

9He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him

10with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him

11also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

12to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.

13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory."

God intervenes on some people's lives, and others He has predestined to allow them to continue naturally; in their sin which is himan nature. At the end of that quote we see why He does this: "...To the praise of His Glory." God's glory is the resounding theme of the Bible, and man's cheif end.

oops

1ACE1 wrote:I just had to say this about your statement of the grammar in the bible being wrong. You haven't studied Greek from what you are telling me, so don't expound on its grammatical content. I haven't even heard from liberal sources that the Greek is incorrect. These things which do exist mean something. Many people also just don't have accurate knowlege of koine Greek. You get things like plural verbs with singular when refering to many as an entity. Many can't seem to understand this because things that happen in Greek don't happen in English. Greek is far more advanced than English, and very technical. Hebrew is much the opposite, and in some ways represents a limited language.

You just brought an arguement that something has an error; show me a passage so that I can analize it. You simply made a blanketed and unspecific statement.

First, I have studied Greek. I think perhaps your lack comprehension may be due to the fact that you have only studied Biblical (or what most poeple refer to as Koine) Greek. I am well aware of all the grammatical rules, which are not very extensive when compared to English. What makes Greek so difficult are the 14 different noun types, 3 verb "voices" (active, middle and passive), word "shape" to determine meaning, and many other attributes not found in modern day English.

Since you are unaware of the text problems existing in the Bible, I assume you have not done extensive study in this area. Unles you are a Classical Greek Scholar (and by that I mean you have studied for at least 10 years all dialects of Ancient Greek (Homeric, Ionic, Doric, Attic, and Koine), your ability to accurately translate the Bible will be very limited - as stated by E.V. Rieu (the founder of Penguin Classics), in F. F. Bruce's work, "A History of the Bible in English."

Anyway, here is a short list of some of the errors in Revelation:

2:12; 3:1,7,14 (to aggelo tes), an error for (to aggelo to).

2:13 apparantly (Antipas) for (Antipa).

9:10 (omoias) probably an error for (omoia).

11:3 (peribeblemenous) An error for (peribeblemenois).

Sorry, my browser doesn't support Greek Fonts.

snoopy wrote:Bet: I wasn't introduced to the formal idea of the communication process until college, so I can see where you are coming from... I know you've heard this before but I'll say it again- what you're doing is irresponsible communication- it happens all the time, but you don't have to sink to everyone else's level.

Language is an imperfect thing. Communication works like this: Person one has an idea and wants to communicate it to person two, so he uses language. Person one translates his idea into words, and says them. Person two hears the words, and translates them into an idea. I'm sure you have been misunderstood before, that's an example of the imperfection of language. So, when a writer writes something down, he has something specific that he/she wants to communicate, but can't perfectly. The reader's job, then, is to most accurately attempt to determine what the author actually wanted to communicate, not what he wants to hear as the reader. So, when it comes to details, a lot of times there is some room for question as to exctly what the author wanted to communicate. Now, when you get millions of people pouring over many copies of the same work over a period of thousands of years, pretty much all of those areas where there is room for question will be well identified and heatedly debated over and over again.

If that was bad enough, then throw in lots of people who don't pour over the work, take for granted what other people tell them about what it means, and then try to use it to further their own ambitions- that will make for a real mess. Add to that tradition that has developed over the years- traditions that don't have really anything to do with the Bible, but people treat as if it does, and you get the state that a lot of Churches are in these days.

My challenge to you: don't stay on their level. If you want to honestly and realistically challenge the Bible and God you're going to need to study it for yourself and find what you can for yourself instead of simply discounting it because you don't like it. Go and find what is wrong with the Bible and God, then challenge them. In the mean time, feel free to challenge and the people who have misrepresented the Bible to you all you want.

With all due respect, you don't know me and I'm not going to bring up my old problems again here. However, there was a dark time in my life that led me to read so many bibles, and religious books, you would have thought I was preparing to be a nun. It would have made my dad proud. I've talked to dozens of different priests, nuns, instructors, friends, etc. The priest I see every sunday is a genuine holy man. I watch his eyes when he holds up the eucharist and I can tell he really believes in God. I like him.

Though I respect these people for what they believe, I wanted answers and found none. No-one could answer my questions. I understand basic theological tenets. I understand the meaning of "biblical interpretations", but to me, its all without substance. I see the bible as a book written with language intended to confuse the masses. It is written to be interpreted whatever way needed to fit the problem of the present generation.

There is absolutely no convincing argument for the existence of God. When a little girl is kneeling by her bed telling god every night to bless her parents and to protect her and keep her from the "boogeyman" only to find herself raped and dead in a field the next day is all I need to convince me that there is no god. He wasn't there for her, and he wasn't there for me.....and I hope no-one insults my intellegence with this "free will" baloney. "Free will" was a term used as an aspirin for the bible.

Please don't look at this as a flame to anyone except God. No disrespect intended to those who believe....Its just not for me.

Bettina

bet51987 wrote: I see the bible as a book ...

There is absolutely no convincing argument for the existence of God. ...

... "Free will" was a term used as an aspirin for the bible.

The Bible (biblia, meaning books, from biblos, meaning scroll or book) I think is better thought of as a compiled library of books, written by a number of different authors, at different times. That it may be difficult to understand might not be too hard to imagine, as many of the writings were produced in a historical context, and can sound strange or ridiculous outside of this context. This could be an area for personal exploration - a good Bible commentary can help here.

As for the existance of evil (and good) in the world, I can refer you back to some of the earlier books I named. Life is a journey, and there are probably just some things that are beyond our comprehension - certainly there are some that are beyond mine. Keeps me humble (well, most of the time!).

And there are always folk who will take any tool and find a way to use, or misuse, it for their own purposes. This goes for things and ideas. I can use a hammer to beat somebody's brains out or I can use it to build a house for a destitute person. It is my choice how I choose to use the hammer.

So have you then studied these for that amount of time? I'm curious, and not doubting if you have. On somewhat of a side note; in Koine Greek there are only five cases. Many argue that there are twelve I believe because of twelve different ways to translate nouns. There are obviously more than that as one can see by reading an advanced greek grammar. There would be hundreds. Another arguement is because other Greek dialects have these distinct cases, but there are only five forms in Koine Greek. It is known that there are a few small errors because of the imperfections of scribe copying etc. There is not; however, any major theological or doctrinal point which can be misunderstood by these. You spoke of John and Peter as similar in writting skills to our American hillbilies. They were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to write, and the original content is accurate. God has said that He will always preserve His word. There are a few obscure passages which can be debated over spelling, but nothing that as I said before obscures any major theological or doctinal point. I have studied these a fair amount. Either way, don't argue from a position of authority because of having a large education. Only the facts matter, and not everything taught anywhere is all true.