God has put us here for a reason

theological

Wow lengthy. So how does God determine who He is going to intervene in? Surely God knows what will happen in the future because He is omniscient. Meaning He knows who He will choose to intervene in before the fact. It's hard to get around this. I suspect this is why your posts on this topic are as I said lengthy.

The Nal

Hes appears to intervene exclusively for American sports and music stars these days. Not for the 15,000 children under 5 years old who died today due to preventable diseases.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think God does intervene. The question is by what means...

And so we can conclude that every man will be saved (by a process aimed at bringing him to end of self) unless he wills it not. If salvation, then all the credit goes to God: for it is his work, his kingdom way, his holiness (which ensures sin brings trouble and pain) which ran the process leading a man to end of self.

If lost, then all the credit goes to a mans will. He insisted on maintaining self-sufficiency to the bitter end. The root cause being unremovable by God (for God will not insist), then that man's problem cannot be resolved.

I think the bit in bold is the problem. There is no question, without God's intervention no-one will respond with saving faith to the offer of salvation in the Christian gospel. If God intervenes, then then it's difficult to understand how that doesn't involve his sovereign choice, especially in light of how these things are presented in the New Testament.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As far as I understand reformed theology there is no human responsibility involved in their being saved. God choses to save this one and not that one for reasons unknown - aside from any human influence or involvement. If there is nuance to that side of things then by all means do tell.

It's important to say that reformed theology is clear that the offer of the gospel is a general one that is open to everyone. The call on all people everywhere to repent is also genuine, and not limited at all by God's sovereignty. So, reformed Christians cannot curtail their evangelism on the basis that God is in control; nor can anyone claim inability to respond with faith on that basis. This is a paradox, but scripture presents both Gods sovereignty and our responsibility as being true at the same time.

If anything, the reformed doctrine of election is a spur to evangelism as it clarifies the fact that God is involved, and that some will respond. A really helpful and accessible short book that articulates these things much better than I can is Packers "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God".

ChrisJ84

The Nal wrote: »

Hes appears to intervene exclusively for American sports and music stars these days. Not for the 15,000 children under 5 years old who died today due to preventable diseases.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Wow, you lobbed that at us like a rock :rolleyes:

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

Wow lengthy. So how does God determine who He is going to intervene in?

Everyone has a conscience. Every one sins. Everyone is exposed to the process. The intervention is universal.

Surely God knows what will happen in the future because He is omniscient. Meaning He knows who He will choose to intervene in before the fact

See above

It's hard to get around this. I suspect this is why your posts on this topic are as I said lengthy.

Only because you are supposing specific intervention as opposed to universal. The only thing indicated biblically as affecting salvation is will against. Refused to love the truth and so be saved. God longs to gather Israel up as a hen gathers her chicks, but they willed it not.

Will against.

theological

God knows about specifics as well though. Including every hair on your head and every sparrow. (Luke 12:6-7).

It can be uncomfortable to think that God knows this level of detail. But know He does and act He does. To say that God doesn't act specifically in His creation requires us to weaken divine omniscience.

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I think the bit in bold is the problem. There is no question, without God's intervention no-one will respond with saving faith to the offer of salvation in the Christian gospel. If God intervenes, then then it's difficult to understand how that doesn't involve his sovereign choice, especially in light of how these things are presented in the New Testament.

The intervention is universal (the world over, all places and times. It is a non-determining force. This force is applied against the will which insists on self sufficiency. And this force can only be defeated by the will insisting on retaining self-sufficiency.

And in retaining self-sufficiency, it also retains the sin involved in that exercise. Damnation follows.

Smacl is as exposed as is the devout Hindu who has never heard of Christ.

NT references for God selecting individuals for salvation are problematic. The Reformed view of the Romans 9 passage is straightforward eisegesis: no account is taken either of the purpose of the chapter or the reason for the chapter in the context of the book. Martyn Lloyd Jones, that mighty Reformed preacher admitted that this aspect of the theology (God chosing to save some and not others, aside from individual input) caused him the greatest problem.

A couple of 'chose/ predestine passages (e.g. Ephesians) are addressed to Christians, describing what has been predestined for the addresses. If it said 'God chose us to be this that and the other', it would still be addressed to Christians. But he actually goes further, labelling the addressees as 'us-in-him' Emphasis who the addressees are. God chose Christians to be conformed to Christ.

Take this:

'They refused to love the truth and so be saved'. A direct link: mans will state determining his damnation. To refuse requires possibility of non-refusal. To say a cat refused to refrain from catching mice is a nonsense. To say a man refused because God, by sovereign choice, didn't alter him so that he could accept is similarly so.

This aspect of Reformed theology ignores the non-sense and doggedly insists that a very limited set of oblique, twice-removed from salvation references support the position.

It's important to say that reformed theology is clear that the offer of the gospel is a general one that is open to everyone.

Go on.

Something isn't open if the only way to respond requires God first spannering on you as a select individual so that you'll accept it. If he doesn't spanner on you, won't be able to accept it.

Open to you. But unless God acts in you specific case, there is no way for you to accept?

The call on all people everywhere to repent is also genuine, and not limited at all by God's sovereignty. So, reformed Christians cannot curtail their evangelism on the basis that God is in control; nor can anyone claim inability to respond with faith on that basis. This is a paradox, but scripture presents both Gods sovereignty and our responsibility as being true at the same time

I don't see the scriptural case for God doing anything other than acting universally and non- determining. The scriptural support for his sovereign choice involved in this one and not that one's salvation is too weak: lack of quantity and what there is suffers from, like I say, glaring issues.

It's the same for the Arminians. They insist on man choosing for God (but not irresistably) but there isn't a single NT reference to support unbelieving man choosing for God. All the will references show unbelieving man willing against God, hating God.

And so I look for something that doesn't suffer 'paradox' (a.k.a. mystery, a.k.a good reason to be tentative in plumping for that theology as satisfactory). For something to be paradox, the reasoning leading to the apparent contradiction must be sound. Yet problems exist (such as the 'chose us in him' issue)

[It was Martyn Lloyd Jones btw, whose exposition of Romans I read, such as to be able to appreciate the structure of the book. Little wonder he struggled with God sovereignly selecting.

If anything, the reformed doctrine of election is a spur to evangelism as it clarifies the fact that God is involved, and that some will respond. A really helpful and accessible short book that articulates these things much better than I can is Packers "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God".

Question to help clarify. If all evangelism of every kind stopped this very day, if no more bibles were sent to countries without, if every church shut its doors .. would it alter the number of people saved from this day forth?

I don't think it would make a jot of a difference. Relational God (we Christians are elevated to sonship afterall) does work specifically. But he also works significantly through man. He includes man in the work of his kingdom come to earth as it is in heaven. He doesn't need to, he could supernaturally bring about his will - but he wants to work through us and does.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

God knows about specifics as well though. Including every hair on your head and every sparrow. (Luke 12:6-7).

It can be uncomfortable to think that God knows this level of detail. But know He does and act He does. To say that God doesn't act specifically in His creation requires us to weaken divine omniscience.

I'm not saying God doesn't act specifically. Of course he does. Water into wine is a pretty cool specific

I mean it in the sense of treating this person specifically such that they will respond to the gospel and not treat that person specifically resulting in them not responding to it.

I'm supposing a level playing field for all people. No one being treated by God in a specific way such as to weigh the scales more in favour of this or that one.

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

It doesn't have to be chance (Calvinism simply says selection a mystery). But it can be chance. Lets say God's unfathomable plan requires x saved people. Chance is a fair selection process.

But the requirement for X saved people may not be. I don't think you can say that something is unfathomable/a mystery, and at the same time say that you know it is fair. If the first statement is true, the second statement can't be true.

Always Tired

Pretty sure the reason is to pet all the dogs I possibly can.

Macdarack

We have put God here for a reason, like the hundreds of other Religions the main attraction is the fear of dying, too much science and logic on earth and far far beyond to even consider gods and prophets etc to be reality. And for Irish people to be following a religion sourced in the Middle East is really bizarre. Don't be afraid to embrace your existence, your pure natural existence, be proud to find out the real meaning in life, of all natural biologically evolved life. Don't wasting your sacred short time on this very special planet, you've one shot bud, don't squander your intellect on an ould book written by a load of lads afraid of their shadow. Read about the things that really matter. Every breath you take is a miracle, the sun on your face is a miracle, the rain from the sky is a miracle.

Deja Boo

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Wow, you lobbed that at us like a rock :rolleyes:

Wow, such a brilliant reply :rolleyes:

Atleast he had a valid point - you simply sidestepped it to cast a stone.

sbsquarepants

smacl wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that freedom of expression, including religious expression, is a basic right, once their is no coercion involved and you respect other people's rights to contrary expression. A caveat on this would be hate speech, for example publicly declaring all homosexuals, atheists etc... were sinners and going to hell.

To be honest i don't see the problem in this, i wouldn't call it hate speech. I know i'm probably in the minority on this, but that seems to be where i spend most of my time;)

If you believe that homosexuality is a sin (which I don't) or that all atheists will burn in hell (I don't believe that either) why should you not be allowed to say it? I don't believe in hell or in sin, i couldn't care less which sin you believe i'm going to burn in hell for!

I think we've reached a point, in this country at least, where very few people listen to crap like that anymore anyway. In an ever more educated and open minded society, people should be able to say what they think, whatever that is. If you're saying stupid things they won't gain much traction with a smarter population anyway. To try prevent people saying certain things is to afford those things some sort of importance they usually just don't deserve.

It's kind of like holocaust denial - i think if you want to deny it, deny away - you're just making a twat of yourself and anyone with an ounce of cop on will see through you. But by banning people from doing such it lends credence to all manner of conspiracy theories "they don't want you to know the truth" kind of crap.

realdanbreen

The big mystery/reason for sceptism is what became of the billions of people who lived and died before God,Jesue,Allah, etc, made themselves known?
Or why God would chose to send his son to earth 2000 years ago which in terms of the existence of mankind is like the day before yesterday.

smacl

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If you believe that homosexuality is a sin (which I don't) or that all atheists will burn in hell (I don't believe that either) why should you not be allowed to say it?

Firstly, there are not shortage of gay Christians out there, so this is a very valid threat to them from their point of view. Secondly, the intent here is to attempt to threaten people into accepting your point of view. It is classic carrot and stick religious tactics. Do as I tell you and you'll enjoy a wondrous eternal hereafter, don't and you'll burn in hell for all eternity. Now you and I might consider these empty threats and promises, but it is nonetheless a rather nasty form of coercion.

sbsquarepants

smacl wrote: »

Firstly, there are not shortage of gay Christians out there,

Is there really not though?

I think people need to have a think about whether they actually are christians or not, or if they are christians, are they specifically catholics (for example)

If the christian bible says homosexuality is a sin, then that's what it says. If you don't like it then maybe just don't be a christian!

smacl wrote: »

Do as I tell you and you'll enjoy a wondrous eternal hereafter, don't and you'll burn in hell for all eternity. Now you and I might consider these empty threats and promises, but it is nonetheless a rather nasty form of coercion.

Oh i agree entirely, it is a nasty form of coercion and stuff like that is largely why i am not religious. I have my own rules which i live by, i don't need or want anyone else's .You don't join a football club and then say, "i don't really like kicking the ball, i'd rather pick it it up and run with it" You join a rugby club instead, or if you don't like any particular set of rules then you don't join any club, you just take your ball to the park and do whatever the hell you feel like with it.

If you don't agree with catholic rules, for example, and decide you won't live your life by them (like you and i have decided) then you just have no right to call yourself a catholic. If you do want to call yourself a catholic, then you need to follow catholic rules. It's as simple as that. Whether you like the rules or hate the rules, makes zero difference.

You can't go telling people they aren't allowed to mention their own rules for their own clubs in case it upsets people who just shouldn't be members in the first place!

The Nal

Imagine living your life obeying rules written by middle eastern men with an agenda between 1900 and 1500 years ago. Its complete madness.

smacl

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Is there really not though?

I think people need to have a think about whether they actually are christians or not, or if they are christians, are they specifically catholics (for example)

If the christian bible says homosexuality is a sin, then that's what it says. If you don't like it then maybe just don't be a christian!

I take what I consider a secularist view here that if someone calls themselves a Christian that is their right and it is not for me or anyone else to question their beliefs or traditions unless invited to do so, or they try to convert me to their religion. I'm of the opinion that we should judge people by their actions and not their beliefs. Even on this thread, we see someone who identifies as LGBT and Christian.

Oh i agree entirely, it is a nasty form of coercion and stuff like that is largely why i am not religious. I have my own rules which i live by, i don't need or want anyone else's .You don't join a football club and then say, "i don't really like kicking the ball, i'd rather pick it it up and run with it" You join a rugby club instead, or if you don't like any particular set of rules then you don't join any club, you just take your ball to the park and do whatever the hell you feel like with it.

If you don't agree with catholic rules, for example, and decide you won't live your life by them (like you and i have decided) then you just have no right to call yourself a catholic. If you do want to call yourself a catholic, then you need to follow catholic rules. It's as simple as that. Whether you like the rules or hate the rules, makes zero difference.

You can't go telling people they aren't allowed to mention their own rules for their own clubs in case it upsets people who just shouldn't be members in the first place!

To stretch your metaphor somewhat there, just because the FAI is a corrupt and chaotic mess is no reason to stop kicking a ball around with your mates. Nor for that matter do you have to play exactly by the rules, it is still football however much the purists might sneer at your efforts.

realdanbreen

theological wrote: »

God knows about specifics as well though. Including every hair on your head and every sparrow. (Luke 12:6-7).

It can be uncomfortable to think that God knows this level of detail. But know He does and act He does. To say that God doesn't act specifically in His creation requires us to weaken divine omniscience.

Why do you refer to God as "he".how do you know he is male?

ChrisJ84

Deja Boo wrote: »

Wow, such a brilliant reply :rolleyes:

Atleast he had a valid point - you simply sidestepped it to cast a stone.

lol, I think it was in keeping with the tone of @TheNals post, no? And given in his next post he says the whole idea of Christianity is madness, I'm not sure why he would care what Christians think about anything.

For what it's worth, I think the issue of suffering is the most difficult question Christians have to engage with, in light of the things we have to say about God and his goodness etc. But I also think that Christianity gives the best answers to the reality of suffering in the world, and certainly better than anything an atheistic worldview has to offer.

It's been talked about numerous times here already, but maybe worth picking up in a new thread if you're interested.

sbsquarepants

smacl wrote: »

I take what I consider a secularist view here that if someone calls themselves a Christian that is their right and it is not for me or anyone else to question their beliefs or traditions unless invited to do so, or they try to convert me to their religion. I'm of the opinion that we should judge people by their actions and not their beliefs. Even on this thread, we see someone who identifies as LGBT and Christian.

It's a whole different can of worms but identifying as something doesn't necessarily make you that thing. Just saying i am a .... is not enough.

I can say "i am an athlete" but it doesn't make me one, i'd have to be able to do athletic things for it to be true.

I'm very much of that belief too - actions are what counts. If your actions are not catholic, or muslim or whatever then it just doesn't change anything if you say you are.

My own personal take is that people are entitled to believe whatever the hell they want, but those beliefs (like any other) are not sacrosanct or above ridicule.

I no more care if you believe all gays will burn in hell, or that they will get to forever ride a rainbow coloured unicorn around the garden of eden.

It is my 100% heartfelt belief that both of those other "beliefs" are equally likely.

I'm allowed to state my belief - why shouldn't everyone else be? Anyone here is also entirely free to mock my belief, even though i do honestly believe it. Again, why shouldn't they be? So what if i believe it, that doesn't make it any more important to anyone else.

smacl wrote: »

To stretch your metaphor somewhat there, just because the FAI is a corrupt and chaotic mess is no reason to stop kicking a ball around with your mates. Nor for that matter do you have to play exactly by the rules, it is still football however much the purists might sneer at your efforts.

It's probably a sliding scale. Get a ball kick it around, jumpers for goalposts and all that, you can call it football of sorts. Replace the ball with a can, it's getting a big shakier. Replace the can with a shuttlecock and instead of kicking it into the goal, hit it with a racket over a net - doesn't matter if you really want to call that football, it's just not.

If people just get to make up their own rules, then games, clubs etc just loose all meaning.

smacl

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's a whole different can of worms but identifying as something doesn't necessarily make you that thing. Just saying i am a .... is not enough.

If I'm not sure what a word means I go looking for some references, both general and contextual. In a general sense, there are a number of definitions for Christian in standard English dictionaries, one of which is as follows (Source)

MW wrote:

Definition of Christian (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
b(1): DISCIPLE sense 2
(2): a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906
(3): a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961

This is pretty broad, where two of the three definitions above don't even necessitate a belief in God, nor address any minutiae from the bible. In the context of this forum we see the following

Charter wrote:

For the purposes of this board 'Christian' means broad assent to historic Christian belief such as is contained in the Apostles' Creed.

And again see something that is rather broad that makes no reference to sexual orientation or church attendance for example, though would exclude gnostic Christians which from my understanding is why the creed was written in the first instance. At the same time on both this and the A&A forum I see many posts going to great lengths to state why some people who consider themselves Christian aren't actually Christian. To my mind, on close examination, these claims are largely divisive and effectively an attack on freedom of religious expression. YMMV.

ChrisJ84

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's a whole different can of worms but identifying as something doesn't necessarily make you that thing. Just saying i am a .... is not enough.

I can say "i am an athlete" but it doesn't make me one, i'd have to be able to do athletic things for it to be true.

I'm very much of that belief too - actions are what counts. If your actions are not catholic, or muslim or whatever then it just doesn't change anything if you say you are.

My own personal take is that people are entitled to believe whatever the hell they want, but those beliefs (like any other) are not sacrosanct or above ridicule.

I no more care if you believe all gays will burn in hell, or that they will get to forever ride a rainbow coloured unicorn around the garden of eden.

It is my 100% heartfelt belief that both of those other "beliefs" are equally likely.

I'm allowed to state my belief - why shouldn't everyone else be? Anyone here is also entirely free to mock my belief, even though i do honestly believe it. Again, why shouldn't they be? So what if i believe it, that doesn't make it any more important to anyone else.





It's probably a sliding scale. Get a ball kick it around, jumpers for goalposts and all that, you can call it football of sorts. Replace the ball with a can, it's getting a big shakier. Replace the can with a shuttlecock and instead of kicking it into the goal, hit it with a racket over a net - doesn't matter if you really want to call that football, it's just not.

If people just get to make up their own rules, then games, clubs etc just loose all meaning.

I think this is really helpful. A fundamental question for me is whether the things Christianity says are true, regardless of what I think or feel about them. Same goes for other beliefs.

If I understand smacl correctly (and I may not), he sees that as a nonsense question. What matters is the individual and we are each free to shape the truth as we see fit, with society or collective opinion providing guard rails against craziness / bigotry etc. So, if I say and feel that I'm a Christian then who has the right to say otherwise?

My problem is that if we follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion then we can't say anything definitive about anything, and collapse into a post modern mess.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

My problem is that if we follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion then we can't say anything definitive about anything, and collapse into a post modern mess.

Call me old fashioned, but if I'm looking for a definition of what a commonly used English word means I initially reach for most widely used English dictionaries. If that definition is likely to change for a specific context, I then look to see if there is a more appropriate contextual definition. I've done both in this case and find all of the reasons why you and others here might not consider someone to be a 'real' Christian fail the general definition and most fail the contextual one.

If you're going to complain that the use of a term isn't definitive enough for you're liking, I'd suggest you start by providing a concise, universally accepted definition for that term.

sbsquarepants

smacl wrote: »

If I'm not sure what a word means I go looking for some references, both general and contextual. In a general sense, there are a number of definitions for Christian in standard English dictionaries, one of which is as follows

I take your point, Christian is indeed a very broad term. (I may even be one myself:D)

My point applies more to specific religions or sects within them than a broad "i'm a christian". I should have worded it a bit better.

smacl wrote: »

And again see something that is rather broad that makes no reference to sexual orientation or church attendance for example, though would exclude gnostic Christians which from my understanding is why the creed was written in the first instance. At the same time on both this and the A&A forum I see many posts going to great lengths to state why some people who consider themselves Christian aren't actually Christian. To my mind, on close examination, these claims are largely divisive and effectively an attack on freedom of religious expression. YMMV.

My point still holds though. You can consider yourself whatever you want, but if you consider yourself to be a member of a club which has specific rules, then you need to either follow those rules, or consider yourself something else. The more specific the club, the more you need to adhere strictly to those rules.

theological

Goodness smacl. How many times must we go through this with you? It's easy to understand that we don't take the definition of Christian from the dictionary but from the Bible.

It'd be great not to drag another thread off topic with this.

smacl

theological wrote: »

Goodness smacl. How many times must we go through this with you? It's easy to understand that we don't take the definition of Christian from the dictionary but from the Bible.

I don't doubt that, but that doesn't make your position to only correct position and every one else's wrong. Perhaps you could add a post to the feedback thread looking for a narrower definition of what it means to be a Christian in the charter.

The bible is a rather large body of text which is clearly open to interpretation, as clearly illustrated by your many recent threads asking what understanding people take from this or that passage of text. This in turn implies that your notion of what it means to be Christian is both ambiguous non-definitive.

smacl

sbsquarepants wrote: »

My point still holds though. You can consider yourself whatever you want, but if you consider yourself to be a member of a club which has specific rules, then you need to either follow those rules, or consider yourself something else. The more specific the club, the more you need to adhere strictly to those rules.

Thing is though, if you're a member of a club and you break some of the rules, it is up to you to leave the club or the club to expel you. It really isn't anyone else's business. Worth noting for example that a Catholic may not be in a state of grace yet they're still a Catholic.

Really what you're doing above is advocating those Christians that are not in broad agreement with the actions of their church to leave that church. I'd agree, but say a person was still followed the apostle's creed, are they still a Christian? I'd say yes.

antiskeptic

realdanbreen wrote: »

The big mystery/reason for sceptism is what became of the billions of people who lived and died before God,Jesue,Allah, etc, made themselves known?
Or why God would chose to send his son to earth 2000 years ago which in terms of the existence of mankind is like the day before yesterday.

Apparently 47 billion people lived up to the time of Christs arrival. And 113 billion have lived so far in total. Making Christs appearance about 1/3 of the way along. It won't take that long (in the overall scheme) before Christs arrival will be seen to have been at the dawn of humanity, in a 'numbers who have ever lived' sense.

What is it, 5 generations per 100 years or so? That's 35 billion per 100 years added to the total. So in 2000 years (which is the day after tommorrow) nearly 1000 billion people will have lived.

(Not that I think the Earth is going to continue in its present high population form for very long more)

realdanbreen

antiskeptic wrote: »

Apparently 47 billion people lived up to the time of Christs arrival. And 113 billion have lived so far in total. Making Christs appearance about 1/3 of the way along. It won't take that long (in the overall scheme) before Christs arrival will be seen to have been at the dawn of humanity, in a 'numbers who have ever lived' sense.

What is it, 5 generations per 100 years or so? That's 35 billion per 100 years added to the total. So in 2000 years (which is the day after tommorrow) nearly 1000 billion people will have lived.

(Not that I think the Earth is going to continue in its present high population form for very long more)

Right,And your point is?