alphaparticle

Who knows. It wouldn't take many people to do this. I certainly wouldn't draw conclusions about the Japanese people as a whole from this.

Regarding the highlighted text, the point is that some people don't want to surrender at all. There is no complication, the way I see it. Either Jesus is Lord or He isn't. Well, He is, and He Himself chose to also be our Saviour. But many people want to call Him Saviour without regard for His Lordship. That's all. Okay... still don't get the content of this. If someone doesn't really 'surrender' they haven't really been saved it would seem to me. Either you are out or in right? And if you are in, the Spirit *will* work on you correct?

Did u catch my post, alpha? The term was in response to the amazing glut of cheap grace theology and evangelism that has run amok in recent decades. Unfortunately, we all do NOT agree on soteriology (the doctrines of salvation) grace is free for us though. I don't see how you can make it 'cheap'er than that. Just because grace is free, that doesn't mean it's cheap. Grace comes to us at a very heavy price, which Jesus paid for in full. We cheapen grace by presuming upon it, I was pretty careful in the way I stated that, if you reread it, knowing full well this would be the response. Likewise, God tells us there is fruit of the Spirit. I never denied that. I never denied that people who are genuine believers have that show in their lives. My point is that it is from and by God, in God's timing, that these things happen. Insofar as I don't see anybody disagreeing with that either, I have no idea what we are disagreeing about or why there ought to be a separate doctrine spelled out here. Maybe there's a bunch of churches teaching believers to go out and do what they want, but aside from obviously incredibly liberal ones who rejected the fundamentals of the gospel anyway, I have not encountered this.

I don't think it's *we* who changes so much as the Spirit who then lives in us changes us. rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Did u catch my post, alpha? The term was in response to the amazing glut of cheap grace theology and evangelism that has run amok in recent decades. Unfortunately, we all do NOT agree on soteriology (the doctrines of salvation) grace is free for us though. I don't see how you can make it 'cheap'er than that. Grace is certainly freely given, in the sense that you cannot earn it through merit, through good works. You also can't pay for that grace because it is too costly, it is worth far too much for you or I to obtain it, except that it is bestowed upon us without our paying the debt. That grace cost Jesus an incredibly gruesome, painful death, and that he bore our sins upon himself on the cross (not sure any of us can really imagine that horror!). The condition for receiving this grace is trust in Christ as your personal Lord and worthy of the surrender of your life to Him. Jesus repeatedly exhorted people to "count the cost" of following after Him, and stated point blank that if you loved anyone, even your own life more than you love Him, you cannot be His disciple. The cost of following Jesus is your life, Jesus made this abundantly clear. It is the only thing you can actually give Him. Everything else is on loan from Him and you are just a steward of it anyways! Surrendering to Jesus unconditionally is His terms of engagement with him, and not a "work". Cheap grace is about telling people that God requires nothing of you except that you "believe in" Jesus. Cheap grace ignores the "count the cost" sermons of Jesus Himself, and jumps straight to an offer of salvation in exchange for agreeing that Jesus existed and died on the cross to erase your sins for no commitment from you whatsoever. Without recognizing Jesus as your Master and committing to follow his ways (this is what it means to count the cost, along with the possible rejection of yourself by everyone you know!) there is no salvation. Many people skip over the hard sayings of Jesus, cherry-pick some verses out of the letters, and call it good. They all go together!!! ALL of the verses pertaining to salvation and faith in Christ are inspired and weighty, not just the ones we like the most, and seem to require the least! Isn't it just like spoiled modern Americans (I am one in the flesh, but not in the spirit) to try to get something for nothing, to search the bible to try to find a way to rip God off by gaining Heaven for the slightest commitment to God Almighty?!? Our works apart from divine grace are filthy rags, but one thing we can do is surrender to him and commit to serve Him as He gives us the strength, knowledge, and even the will to do it! We must be informed by the WHOLE COUNSEL of the word of God, and not be proof texting cherry-pickers! We are either saved by God or not right? Seems like you could cause a lot of unnecessary soul wrenching trying to figure out if you've 'surrended' enough. We will live with sin (re 1 john for example) until we die. gal 5:17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. Anyway, I still don't get why there should be an extra category introduced here, or what the extra complication is for.

Did u catch my post, alpha? The term was in response to the amazing glut of cheap grace theology and evangelism that has run amok in recent decades. Unfortunately, we all do NOT agree on soteriology (the doctrines of salvation) grace is free for us though. I don't see how you can make it 'cheap'er than that.

I admit I find the discussion here confusing. IF it is the case that Jesus alone saves us, and through this particular faith, then those are the necessary and sufficient conditions. I don't think anyone would contest that fruits of the Spirit would follow, including repentance from sins over time. But if everyone agrees about that, what is so unique about 'lordship salvation'? Why even invent the term?

what I find a bit odd is the notion that someone could sincerely believe, and have this sort of faith, and God would not convict that person. What about the power of the Spirit over the lives of believers? I don't think anyone who is a sincere believer would be allowed to merely sit still?

Well said, but I have explained this before. If we see the earth and universe already in existence before creation week, but see creation week as God producing visibility some days, and God creating biological life forms supernaturally on the other days, we can then accept the face value of the 24 hour days as described. Night/day evening/morning. 6 literal days of light shining through the waters in the air, and God creating life. Yeah, and perhaps, but that isn't the most obvious reading either. Gen 1:14-19 might be read that way, but they seem to most easily be saying that these 'lights' were made at that time also. I'm not going to discount your reading, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's extremely *clear-cut* which is the best way to read this. I accept your point, although I believe it becomes the most clear cut view if we look at the following 1) the different Hebrew words used for the "creation" of biological life, and the "producing/observation" of light/s 2) the emphasis of God's location on earth's surface instead of the usual heavenly location. 3) the emphasis on airborne water, which lifts up to create visibility 4) facing that the morning/evening does sound like a normal day (context favors a literal day) 5) Reconciling these literal days with the sun being subsequently produced/observed I agree its not the only possibility, but at least it reconciles the apparent contradictions while remaining faithful to the Hebrew. (I'm not trying to convince you here, you have stated your position and I appreciate your openness. I'm just hoping some other readers will see the sense of this view) I'll give this some thought. Let me lob this at you and see what you think. If I take the view you are suggesting, which as I understand it is the formation of something like the surface of the earth from the point of view of things happening on the earth, is it possible that the bulk of the earth itself had been previously around for a long time and was being re-formed? I suppose I know you are OEC so I am curious to see how you fit this all together also. I might also wonder though, if it is possible to see this as from the earth's point of view as stuff is being formed, who is to say that God didn't bring forth animals already previously evolved? We have God 'presenting' the lights that govern day and night to the earth, if I understand you correctly, by changing the earth's atmosphere so that the sun and moon can be seen from the surface. What if something analogous could happen with biological life? I admit that is more of a stretch interpretively in that they aren't being formed out of nothing on those literal days, but at the outset I might think it's plausible alternative to look at. Once again good points, regarding biological life I am a bible literalist and try to stay as faithful to the Hebrew as possible. The word "created" is not used for the light/s in the sky, yet it is used for the land, and the sky in verse 1 and also the creation of biological life. I believe if the bible says these were created in 24 hour days, this is what we are to believe. If I found anything in DNA, geology to contradict this maybe I would have another look at the bible meaning, but I don't see any part of science that favors the mainstream scientific position over the biblical scientific position. 6 literal days, this is when biological life was created. Regarding the bulk of earth being around and being re-formed, this is possible, God could have been doing many interesting things in the universe and this planet for billions of years before creation week started. The story of creation week is mankinds story, the story of our origins. The angels must have their story too, maybe there's a "book of angels" in heaven, a story of why and how God created them, where they were created, describing the first angel. The possibilities are endless but we are to be concerned with man's story, here on planet earth. I personally see no evidence of any other activity here on earth, I regard this planet as set aside for mankind's story, although the bible does not actually say that. To me the paleozoic world with its 35% oxygen and misty environment was perfect for the long life-spans of the bible times, and the great death of history (PT boundary) matches the great death of the bible (flood) and have no reason to suspect a pre-Genesis world that needed to be re-formed. I believe it formed once, referring to geology. Hope my waffling answered your questions. It does. Thanks for sharing this.

Repentance in response to salvation makes sense to me. I don't think it makes sense to have it be a precondition to salvation, repent and then maybe you can be saved, sort of thing. That is where I am unclear as to how lordship salvation works with this. I read a couple things about it last night and it seems like a very fine line to walk.

A need in what sense? For salvation? Is this a precondition for salvation or a response to salvation? rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

You don't think God saves us unless we stop sinning first?

?

What are your favorite books with regard to Christianity (aside from the Bible)? I have enjoyed some CS Lewis writings a lot. Now I am curious to see what people enjoy, particularly with regards to stuff touching on theology and philosophy, biblical interpretation and the like.

Well said, but I have explained this before. If we see the earth and universe already in existence before creation week, but see creation week as God producing visibility some days, and God creating biological life forms supernaturally on the other days, we can then accept the face value of the 24 hour days as described. Night/day evening/morning. 6 literal days of light shining through the waters in the air, and God creating life. Yeah, and perhaps, but that isn't the most obvious reading either. Gen 1:14-19 might be read that way, but they seem to most easily be saying that these 'lights' were made at that time also. I'm not going to discount your reading, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's extremely *clear-cut* which is the best way to read this. I accept your point, although I believe it becomes the most clear cut view if we look at the following 1) the different Hebrew words used for the "creation" of biological life, and the "producing/observation" of light/s 2) the emphasis of God's location on earth's surface instead of the usual heavenly location. 3) the emphasis on airborne water, which lifts up to create visibility 4) facing that the morning/evening does sound like a normal day (context favors a literal day) 5) Reconciling these literal days with the sun being subsequently produced/observed I agree its not the only possibility, but at least it reconciles the apparent contradictions while remaining faithful to the Hebrew. (I'm not trying to convince you here, you have stated your position and I appreciate your openness. I'm just hoping some other readers will see the sense of this view) I'll give this some thought. Let me lob this at you and see what you think. If I take the view you are suggesting, which as I understand it is the formation of something like the surface of the earth from the point of view of things happening on the earth, is it possible that the bulk of the earth itself had been previously around for a long time and was being re-formed? I suppose I know you are OEC so I am curious to see how you fit this all together also. I might also wonder though, if it is possible to see this as from the earth's point of view as stuff is being formed, who is to say that God didn't bring forth animals already previously evolved? We have God 'presenting' the lights that govern day and night to the earth, if I understand you correctly, by changing the earth's atmosphere so that the sun and moon can be seen from the surface. What if something analogous could happen with biological life? I admit that is more of a stretch interpretively in that they aren't being formed out of nothing on those literal days, but at the outset I might think it's plausible alternative to look at.

I'm not muddying the waters at all. In Gen 1 the days are defined by morning and evenings *before the sun was created*. Given that circumstance, I do not think you can naively assume that these are 24 hr periods, as 24 hr periods are contingent on the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun. I have to say, I am not convinced. ALPHA...... (Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." What's left so say Sir ?????? I do not think you can naively assume a 24 hr day applies conceptually to a time before the sun exists when 24 hr days, mornings and evenings are *defined by* the earth-sun system. 'Day' could very well mean something else when applied to that era.. and maybe should. I already did addressed your concerns but you didn't answer the simple question. I will end this....Valentine's Day Dinner with the Misses Let me add one final thought: Don't miss the Forrest through the Trees Sir What question did I miss? I don't think I'm fixating on an irrelevant detail in this case. Since are talking about the ultimate origins, including of the earth-sun system and days/evenings/mornings, this seems legit to me. Enjoy your time. ================================================================================================= Sorry missed this: This one.... EXODUS 20:11 is THE BIG DADDY..... (Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." *Special Note*-- GOD wrote this HIMSELF with HIS FINGER in........ STONE!! ----------->>>>>>> Is there ANY MORE CLEAR WAY GOD could have said it ????!!!! <<<<<<<<<----------------- Now, I don't think any person can give a YES answer to that question without compromising their Integrity....Intellectually or otherwise. Ah yes, I did answer that question. That's a reference to the Genesis account and I don't think it makes sense to assign a 24 hr period, evenings and mornings, to a time before there was an earth-sun system. In other words, I don't think this answers my question about this at all.

I have to think that people were messing with the pollsters. I can think of some people who would do this, and snicker about it later. It's really too ridiculous.

Well said, but I have explained this before. If we see the earth and universe already in existence before creation week, but see creation week as God producing visibility some days, and God creating biological life forms supernaturally on the other days, we can then accept the face value of the 24 hour days as described. Night/day evening/morning. 6 literal days of light shining through the waters in the air, and God creating life. Yeah, and perhaps, but that isn't the most obvious reading either. Gen 1:14-19 might be read that way, but they seem to most easily be saying that these 'lights' were made at that time also. I'm not going to discount your reading, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's extremely *clear-cut* which is the best way to read this.

The Metaphysical Universe And The Plain Spoken Truth Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11 Sure, I have no problem with philosophical metaphysics at all. And yeah, I can see how consciousness is one of those questions. But what can he mean by metaphysical 'energy'?? Does he mean something like platonic substance? It's very unclear to me what he had in mind with that sort of language.

The argument as I've grasped it is problematic philosophically. If you want to connect physical energy to consciousness then it is measurable and it really undermines his point. He wants to say it's metaphysical 'energy' which is unfortunate terminology in my estimation, and in that case, he has the old problem in philosophy of mind about how physical and mental properties interact. Maybe he has more specific thoughts on this. Perhaps he wants to run something like an argument for God's existence based on consciousness, and say God is necessary to make the connection, but I wasn't sure what was going on.

haha, well, if it makes you feel any better, I find these exchanges helpful. Can you imagine all of us (@ a Neutral Site) having Dinner.......... No Knives or Forks, Obviously :24: .....just Paper Flatware True or False: How long before the COPS show up??? :24: :24: Spock gets the Check Oh well, as long as spock is picking up the tab I'm in.

haha, well, if it makes you feel any better, I find these exchanges helpful.

I'm not muddying the waters at all. In Gen 1 the days are defined by morning and evenings *before the sun was created*. Given that circumstance, I do not think you can naively assume that these are 24 hr periods, as 24 hr periods are contingent on the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun. I have to say, I am not convinced. ALPHA...... (Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." What's left so say Sir ?????? I read this verse before. Increasing the font and bolding stuff doesn't increase my reading comprehension. You aren't addressing my concern. I do not think you can naively assume a 24 hr day applies conceptually to a time before the sun exists when 24 hr days, mornings and evenings are *defined by* the earth-sun system. 'Day' could very well mean something else when applied to that era.. and maybe should. I already did addressed your concerns but you didn't answer the simple question. I will end this....Valentine's Day Dinner with the Misses Let me add one final thought: Don't miss the Forrest through the Trees Sir What question did I miss? I don't think I'm fixating on an irrelevant detail in this case. Since are talking about the ultimate origins, including of the earth-sun system and days/evenings/mornings, this seems legit to me. Enjoy your time.

I'm not muddying the waters at all. In Gen 1 the days are defined by morning and evenings *before the sun was created*. Given that circumstance, I do not think you can naively assume that these are 24 hr periods, as 24 hr periods are contingent on the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun. I have to say, I am not convinced. ALPHA...... (Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." What's left so say Sir ?????? I read this verse before. Increasing the font and bolding stuff doesn't increase my reading comprehension. You aren't addressing my concern. I do not think you can naively assume a 24 hr day applies conceptually to a time before the sun exists when 24 hr days, mornings and evenings are *defined by* the earth-sun system. 'Day' could very well mean something else when applied to that era.. and maybe should.

Is there Precedence, that is to say....Is there any other place in Scripture where there is No "Light" from the Sun..... but there is "LIGHT"?? Sure, light. But my concern is with the very specific terminology, 'morning' and 'evening' which are concepts that are defined by the earth-sun system. Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. These are terms introduced well before the description of creating the sun. I do not know that I would be justified in just assuming these are the standard 24 hr days we are used to-- because the 24 hr days are all about the rate of rotation with respect to the sun. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exodus 20:11 puts that issue to bed quite demonstrably. Also...do you question how many days Jonah was in the Great Fish? or How many days the Israelite's marched around Jericho? Now this is JUST MY OPINION .......... I believe those two (Erev and Boker) refer to decreasing Entropy. Why? That's exactly what God was doing for the first 6 "Days" AND They are MISSING IN ACTION on the 7th DAY along with any reductions in Entropy....(HE Rested) Also, if GOD was the Light before the SUN....couldn't HE control that "LIGHT"?? I don't think those verses put this to bed at all. Those references, Jonah for example, were *after* the sun-earth system was already established. We are talking about before the talk about the creation of the sun at all, and use of those terms. I don't think we can assume we can apply them in the same way to a situation which is radically different-- and it is. Alpha...don't muddy the waters here. The Jonah and Jericho references were used as an example of "nobody is questioning those days" EXODUS 20:11 is THE BIG DADDY..... (Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Is there ANY MORE CLEAR WAY GOD could have said it ????!!!! Now, I don't think any person can give a YES answer to that question without compromising their Integrity....Intellectually or otherwise. I'm not muddying the waters at all. In Gen 1 the days are defined by morning and evenings *before the sun was created*. Given that circumstance, I do not think you can naively assume that these are 24 hr periods, as 24 hr periods are contingent on the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun. I have to say, I am not convinced.